Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
As Israel edges closer to decisions about preemptive strikes on Iran, it must navigate an increasingly complex global security landscape shaped by U.S. and Russian nuclear doctrines. These doctrines—markedly divergent in their thresholds for nuclear engagement—carry profound implications for Israel’s strategic calculus, particularly as it weighs anticipatory self-defense against a potentially nuclear Iran.
For decades, Russian nuclear policy has blurred the line between conventional and tactical nuclear weapons, emphasizing their use in theater operations without necessarily escalating to all-out nuclear war. In contrast, American doctrine traditionally draws a firm line: any nuclear weapon’s use constitutes an existential threat, compelling full-scale retaliation. This asymmetry raises critical questions for Israel, caught in the crossfire of these doctrines and their ripple effects in the Middle East.
The Putin Factor: A Lower Nuclear Threshold
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s updated nuclear posture has only heightened concerns. With doctrines that emphasize “first use” and expanding theater nuclear capabilities, Moscow’s actions in Ukraine signal a willingness to escalate quickly—if not strategically. For Israel, the concern lies in how such a shift might embolden Iran, bolstered by Russian or North Korean military backing, to test Israel’s deterrence.
The Trump Doctrine’s Shadow
Meanwhile, former U.S. President Donald Trump’s approach to nuclear policy—characterized by unpredictability and rejection of scientific rigor—created strategic ambiguities. If Trump were to re-enter office, his past policies raise questions about whether American thresholds for nuclear engagement might align closer to Russia’s, inadvertently destabilizing the Middle East further. For Israel, this uncertainty complicates its reliance on U.S. extended deterrence.
Synergies and Asymmetries in Firebreaks
The interplay of these doctrines could foster unpredictable dynamics between Israel and Iran. Suppose Russia or North Korea provides Iran with military assistance, nuclear or otherwise. In that case, Israel might feel compelled to act preemptively, even if Iran remains technically “pre-nuclear.” Such scenarios necessitate nuanced risk assessments from Jerusalem, accounting for doctrinal asymmetries and the possibility of synergistic escalations.
Israel’s Strategic Imperative
Israel must approach these challenges as intellectual, not merely political, problems. Key decisions will depend on understanding adversaries’ strategic preferences—rational or irrational—and adapting accordingly. Whether dealing with a rational adversary like Putin or potentially unpredictable behavior from Iran, Israel’s survival hinges on clear-headed calculations about nuclear thresholds and the broader geopolitical environment.
The stakes for Israel are high, as nuclear doctrines evolve in Washington and Moscow, shaping not only their bilateral tensions but also the regional power dynamics in the Middle East. For Jerusalem, preparedness means embracing complexity, foresight, and a willingness to adapt to an ever-changing nuclear landscape.
