In the fog of war with Iran, whose long-term consequences may take years to fully understand, American and Israeli strategists are already preparing for their next conflicts. They recognize a central truth: Tomorrow’s wars will not resemble today’s.
If the Iranian regime falls, Israel’s primary adversary could change. Much depends on whether the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps tightens its grip or whether genuine political transformation empowers the Iranian people.
A reconstituted, aggressive Iran would likely extend the close US-Israel strategic alignment. But such alignment cannot be assumed under every future scenario.
Divergence of threats
Threat perceptions may diverge in the years ahead. If Turkey’s current Islamist leader expands his hegemonic ambitions and hostility toward Israel, Ankara could become Jerusalem’s principal strategic rival.
Washington, however, is likely to continue prioritizing Turkey’s role in NATO, putting US policy at odds with Israel’s strategic assessment. Egypt, despite decades of cold peace with Israel, continues to consider Israel its primary adversary in its current military planning.
Since Egypt is not an American adversary, Israeli strategic planners must contend with the possibility that Israel could face the largest Arab army alone in the coming decades.
Each potential theater of combat would require distinct tactical approaches, as well as tailored weapon systems.
The United States is primarily focused on China and Taiwan, whereas Israel faces regional threats shaped by a complex mix of state and non-state Shi’ite and Sunni jihadist actors.
Today’s shared US-Israeli military priorities – drones, missile defense, and cyber capabilities – are likely to evolve toward hypersonic missiles, advanced AI-driven warfare, and directed-energy systems.
The most effective path forward is to strengthen the synergistic partnership in research and development, enabling both nations to maintain an edge over their adversaries, whether those threats are shared or different.
Israel’s distinctive advantage, from which the United States also benefits, begins with civilian-military integration.
Start-ups, universities, elite units, and defense firms collaborate in near real time, allowing operational systems to be refined even during active combat. For the Start-Up Nation, innovation is not sequential; it is continuous.
Artificial intelligence
When air superiority is established, as in the case of the Iran conflict, intelligence can be rapidly translated into action.
Unit 8200 is reportedly advancing artificial intelligence to process signals intelligence at high speed, identify hidden patterns, and assist human analysts who would otherwise be overwhelmed by data.
The objective is to shorten decision cycles while preserving human strategic control.
The conflict with Iran underscores that anti-missile defense systems will remain a top priority for the foreseeable future.
Research continues on the next-generation Arrow 3 interceptor, designed to integrate with satellite networks and enhance early warning and interception of long-range ballistic threats.
As missile proliferation grows and saturation attacks become increasingly threatening, layered anti-missile defenses are becoming ever more essential.
High-energy lasers, such as Iron Beam, may redefine the economics of air defense. Systems like Iron Beam promise to replace costly interceptors with low-cost energy shots, shifting the focus from Iron Dome interceptor stockpile endurance to sustainable power projection.
The US is investing heavily in similar capabilities, and Israel’s operational experience positions it as both partner and proving ground. However, laser systems capable of engaging ballistic missiles remain years away, as Iron Beam is currently limited to targeting projectiles within 10 km.
Looking ahead, air-based laser systems – unhindered by terrain – could become a critical component of future air defense strategies.
Electronic warfare
Electronic warfare is another critical component of both US and Israeli arsenals. The Scorpius system, developed by Israel Aerospace Industries, employs electronically steered beams to jam enemy radar and communications networks.
Cyber capabilities complete this integrated framework.
As systems become more automated, cutting-edge offensive and defensive cyber tools are essential to disrupt enemy infrastructure while protecting one’s own. Israel integrates military, academia, and industry in cyber research and development.
Companies such as NSO Group are at the forefront of advanced cyber development for national security, while the Israel National Cyber Directorate brings in private actors and coordinates Israel’s cyber defense policy.
Israel cannot lose a war nor appear vulnerable. A former Iranian president’s description of Israel as “a one-bomb country” captures the existential threat underlying its security doctrine.
Regional adversaries are patient; they outlast American administrations and wait for political winds to shift. That patience exposes an American weakness: Short-term political cycles often undermine long-term strategy.
Israel’s adversaries span Sunni jihadist movements, Muslim Brotherhood-inspired networks, Islamist-leaning states such as Qatar, Turkey, and Pakistan, and potentially a resurgent Iran.
Ideological hostility toward a Jewish state in the Levant remains a unifying thread across otherwise competing actors.
Innovation in this environment must extend beyond drones and missiles. It requires countermeasures against AI-enabled targeting, cyber intrusions, hybrid warfare, and technological surprise. Deterrence depends on observable superiority.
Future MoU
As Israel negotiates a future memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Washington to preserve its qualitative military edge, difficult American political realities loom.
Advanced systems once exclusive to Israel may be exported to regional actors such as Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. The F-35 Lightning II illustrates this dilemma: Even if export versions lack Israeli modifications, perceptions of a narrowing technological gap can erode deterrence.
Reliance on US platforms carries inherent political risks. Supply chains and spare parts depend on executive approvals shaped by public opinion.
Statements such as the claim that the US entered the Iran war because of Israel’s actions do not resonate well with Democrats or isolationist Republicans.
Friction with future administrations is inevitable, and their leverage can translate into Israeli vulnerability.
Israel must therefore expand domestic production wherever feasible in munitions, interceptors, cyber systems, and indigenous upgrades to shared technologies, especially to counter adversaries acquiring advanced Chinese or Russian weapons platforms.
Strategic diversification, such as technological cooperation and production partnerships with countries such as India, enhances Israel’s independence while addressing shared concerns about Islamist threats.
Expanding trade and joint innovation with nations across South and East Asia can further reduce reliance on any single partner. At the same time, the United States and Israel must, for the benefit of both nations, maintain a close alliance.
Ultimately, Israel’s decisive advantage lies less in hardware than in human capital. Its military-intelligence ecosystem identifies exceptional talent early, empowering young innovators with responsibilities uncommon in larger bureaucracies.
This culture of rapid adaptation fuels both national defense and civilian technological leadership. Israel’s future security will depend not only on superior platforms but on relentless innovation, institutional agility, and credible deterrence.
Alliances may shift, technologies will evolve, but the imperative remains constant: Anticipate change before it arrives, innovate faster than adversaries, and ensure that deterrence remains unquestioned.■
Dr. Eric R. Mandel is the senior security editor of The Jerusalem Report and director of MEPIN, the Middle East Political Information Network. He regularly briefs members of Congress and their foreign policy aides, the State Department, and think tanks.