A shifting global landscape is redrawing security calculations for U.S. allies and adversaries alike, and few states feel the tremors as sharply as Israel. After three decades in which American-led institutions, expanding trade, and liberal norms shaped expectations of stability, analysts say the international system is increasingly defined by nationalism, populism, and revisionism—conditions that raise the odds of high-intensity interstate conflict while simultaneously weakening the reliability of Washington’s protective umbrella.
In a recent assessment, Benny Miller argues that the crumbling of the liberal international order is creating a dual challenge for Israel—worsening some threats while potentially easing others—by altering both the capabilities Israel can rely on and the threat environment it faces (Benny Miller, INSS Insight No. 2076, “The New World Order: Implications for Israel,” Dec. 30, 2025).
The erosion of post–Cold War assumptions has been accelerated by the return of territorial conquest as a strategic tool. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, following its 2014 seizure of Crimea, punctured a long-held European belief that economic interdependence and international institutions had made major war increasingly unlikely. Western states responded by rallying behind Ukraine through NATO-led assistance—money, weapons, and political backing—even as they avoided deploying combat troops.
But the external shock has coincided with an internal rupture in the West. Across democracies, illiberal and nationalist populist currents have gained ground, often expressing skepticism toward alliances and multilateral institutions. The most consequential shift, Miller notes, is the 2024 return of President Donald Trump to the White House under an “America First” banner that raises fresh questions about whether the United States would automatically defend partners facing aggression—whether in Europe, East Asia, or the Middle East.
For Israel, that uncertainty cuts in multiple directions. On one hand, Israel’s advanced defense industry could benefit from the surge in global rearmament. As defense budgets rise and governments debate expanded forces—even renewed conscription in parts of Europe—Israel’s combat experience, reserve-system know-how, and demand for air defense and battlefield-tested technologies may become strategic assets in new partnerships.
On the other hand, Israel’s heavy dependence on Washington leaves it exposed to changing political winds inside the United States. While Trump’s coalition includes strong pro-Israel constituencies—particularly evangelical Christians—Miller highlights a competing “America First” isolationist wing wary of Middle East entanglements. At the same time, support for Israel has shown signs of softening among younger Americans and parts of the Democratic Party, a trend that could complicate long-term military and diplomatic backing.
Threats are also evolving. Miller describes a tightening authoritarian axis—China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran—whose coordination could translate into more advanced weapons flows to Tehran, potentially constraining Israel’s freedom of action. A separate challenge comes from a resurgent “Muslim Brotherhood”–aligned regional network, including Qatar and Turkey, as diplomacy over Gaza’s endgame and postwar stabilization arrangements elevates actors often at odds with Israeli interests.
Yet the new order may also open paths to de-escalation. Miller points to Trump’s stated emphasis on preventing wars and brokering agreements as a factor that could reduce threats if translated into durable regional arrangements—ranging from post-Gaza frameworks and Lebanon-related enforcement efforts to potential understandings involving Syria. A larger prize remains normalization with Saudi Arabia, which, if paired with credible progress toward a two-state trajectory, could reshape Israel’s regional integration and lower the temperature of conflict.
For now, Israel faces a strategic paradox: a world that looks more dangerous and less predictable, but also one in which new alignments—and new deals—could emerge quickly. Whether the balance tilts toward rising peril or reduced risk may depend on how firmly U.S. commitments hold, how adversarial blocs consolidate, and whether diplomacy can keep pace with an accelerating arms race.
Graphic: INSS