Israel has adopted a cautious stance in the escalating conflict with Iran, refraining from further direct military involvement at the request of the United States and regional allies. Since the conflict’s onset in February, U.S. and Israeli forces collaborated closely in air operations targeting Iranian assets, using a combination of firepower, intelligence, and logistical support.
However, U.S. officials and Arab governments in the Persian Gulf have urged Israel to pause its active role to avoid complicating ongoing diplomatic efforts aimed at extracting concessions from Tehran and preventing a wider war. Washington has communicated this position to Israel, which has complied by holding back on additional strikes.
Arab states in the Gulf, concerned about potential Iranian retaliation, have lobbied for Israel’s restraint. These states fear that renewed Israeli attacks could provoke a harsh response from Iran, including strikes on critical energy infrastructure, further destabilizing the region’s strategic waterways and complicating their own security calculations. Additionally, Gulf officials worry that Israeli involvement might hinder their participation in potential coalition strikes against Iran.
Regional mediators have supported these calls for Israeli restraint, warning that increased Israeli engagement would make it more difficult for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—which wields significant influence over Tehran’s decisions—to return to the negotiating table.
“The situation is a limited escalation, and there remains a recognized path back to diplomacy,” said Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer at King’s College London. “Involving Israel more directly could complicate matters considerably.”
The U.S. remains in close communication with both Israel and its Gulf partners, according to a U.S. official who declined further comment. Although there was alignment in the initial phase of the conflict, U.S. and Israeli objectives diverged in the spring. U.S. President Donald Trump sought to avert disruptions to global energy supplies by pursuing a diplomatic resolution, while Israeli leaders expressed frustration that the campaign ended prematurely without achieving more decisive damage to Iran’s regime.
Recent developments appear to have shifted momentum somewhat back toward Israel’s perspective. Following the collapse of a temporary ceasefire intended to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and facilitate peace talks, the U.S. reinforced its blockade of Iranian shipping and intensified airstrikes over the last ten days. Iran, in response, has launched attacks on vessels it insists violate its control of the strait, a crucial artery previously responsible for transporting about 20% of the world’s oil.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has conducted consultations with cabinet ministers and security officials regarding the evolving situation. Observers note that Israel presently prefers to maintain strategic distance, allowing economic measures to erode Iran’s leadership, but remains prepared to respond if directly attacked.
“Our overarching objective is to weaken and undermine the regime’s existence,” said Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a Netanyahu cabinet member and participant in recent security discussions. “Crushing the regime economically is presently the most effective approach. The current status benefits us, and we have no interest in escalating, though we remain ready for any eventuality.”
Iran has likewise avoided direct strikes on Israel, instead targeting U.S. allies such as Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan—where a missile attack recently killed at least two U.S. servicemembers. Despite this pattern, Arab officials remain apprehensive that broadening hostilities could eventually draw Israel more directly into the conflict.
Complicating the regional dynamic are threats from Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, who have previously fired missiles at Israel and are now signaling intentions to blockade the Red Sea. Such a move would further threaten Gulf oil shipments and escalate tensions.
There also remains the possibility that the U.S. could seek Israeli assistance to broaden operations against Iran, especially as President Trump has been briefed on options to intensify strikes, including attacks on bridges and port facilities. Yet, Trump appears inclined toward negotiation, having pulled back from earlier threats to de-escalate the fighting. The president has reportedly expressed frustration with Netanyahu’s perceived eagerness to escalate, suggesting that the Israeli leader’s instincts have complicated efforts to resolve conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran.
As the conflict continues, Israel for now remains on the sidelines, balancing its security priorities amid complex regional and international pressures.