Earthquakes rarely cause the greatest destruction. The devastation usually comes afterward – when tsunamis strike unprepared shores.
As tensions rise between the United States and Iran, leaders are focused on what happens during a confrontation. Far fewer are asking what happens the day after – especially if Heaven forbid, American casualties occur. Because the backlash may not land where policymakers expect.
Because in that moment, a geopolitical earthquake abroad could trigger a social and political antisemitic tsunami at home. And the first place that wave would hit would not be Israel, but American Jews.
Why America confronts Iran — and why it matters
A hard truth must be acknowledged: from Washington’s perspective, confronting Iran is not primarily about Israel. It is about American strategic interests.
The Monroe Doctrine once warned that threats in the Western Hemisphere threatened the US itself. Today, geography matters far less. Missiles, cyber warfare, drones, and nuclear proliferation mean hostile actors do not need to sit on America’s borders to threaten American interests.
A nuclear Iran would destabilize the Middle East, threaten energy markets, embolden armed proxies, and likely push neighboring states toward nuclear capability of their own. Such instability affects global economic systems on which the United States depends.
There is also a China dimension. Beijing’s economic and strategic ties with Tehran – including reliance on Iranian energy supplies – give China leverage across the region. Weakening Iran’s capacity for regional expansion weakens China’s foothold in a region already central to global power competition.
In addition, efforts to build a new Middle Eastern architecture – sometimes described as a regional “Board of Peace,” managing as well as linking economic normalization and security cooperation – depend on reducing Iran’s destabilizing role. A prosperous and integrated Middle East cannot coexist with an expansionist Iran armed with nuclear capability and proxy militias.
From Washington’s viewpoint, this is an American interest first.
But even policies rooted in national interest carry consequences beyond the battlefield. And those consequences rarely unfold where policymakers expect them.
A public not prepared for war
Another uncomfortable reality remains: most Americans do not want another Middle East war. Polling consistently shows strong support for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, yet deep reluctance toward direct military conflict.
Meanwhile, influential media voices like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens increasingly frame US involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts as serving foreign interests rather than American ones. Such rhetoric, often directed toward Israel and Jewish influence, risks assigning blame even before conflict escalates.
Now imagine the scenario.
An Iranian escalation leads to American casualties – through proxy attacks, missile strikes, or incidents involving US forces already stationed in the region. The shock lands not in policy circles but in American living rooms.
And someone inevitably asks: Why were we there?
In moments of national trauma, blame seeks targets.
The field is already dry
The danger is magnified by another reality: antisemitism in the United States has already surged dramatically in recent years.
In 2023, antisemitic incidents exceeded 8,800 nationwide – more than double the previous year. In 2024, incidents rose again, surpassing 9,300. After the October 7 Hamas attack and Israel’s subsequent war in Gaza, antisemitic incidents in America spiked by more than 300% in the months that followed.
Jews represent roughly two percent of the US population, yet account for nearly 70% of religion-based hate crimes.
Synagogues now routinely employ armed security. Jewish students face harassment on campuses. Violent incidents have occurred across major cities.
The ground is already dry. It would not take much to ignite it.
The tsunami scenario
In disaster science, tsunamis often cause more destruction than the earthquake that triggers them.
If American soldiers are killed in confrontation with Iran, the first wave of backlash would likely not hit Tel Aviv. It would hit New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, and other cities with large Jewish populations.
Communities already under strain could face escalating attacks on synagogues, institutions, businesses, and individuals. Online hostility could spill into physical violence, as seen not only in the US but across Western societies and even as far away as Australia.
Global Jewish communities would feel the second wave. Israel would face the third – renewed diplomatic pressure, intensified protests, and fresh attempts to delegitimize its actions or existence. Much of this backlash would be disconnected from policy realities. But in crisis moments, perception often outweighs facts.
Be careful what you wish for
There is another uncomfortable irony.
Some leaders – both in Israel and within parts of the American Jewish community – quietly hope decisive American action might weaken or even topple Iran’s regime. Such an outcome could reduce long-term threats.
But there is an old warning: be careful what you wish for.
Are those advocating stronger action prepared for consequences if American lives are lost? Are Jewish communities prepared for potential backlash?
History shows military operations rarely unfold exactly as planned. Unexpected casualties occur even in carefully executed missions.
Hope is not a strategy of preparedness.
The ‘hasbara’ problem
This leads to a deeper challenge: preparedness in the information and societal domain.
For years, Israel and Jewish organizations have relied on traditional hasbara – explaining facts, correcting narratives, and defending policy after events occur. But war is not an academic debate. It is emotional, fast-moving, and often irrational.
Preparedness requires anticipating consequences before they happen. It demands coordination between Israeli leadership and American Jewish leadership while recognizing that domestic American dynamics must be addressed by American actors.
Israel must avoid appearing to dictate US policy. American Jewish leadership must lead domestically. Yet coordination on messaging, community safety, and crisis response must occur well before the next shock.
At present, such coordination appears insufficient.
Who is thinking about the day after?
Governments plan for earthquakes. Coastal cities mark evacuation routes. Citizens practice emergency drills.
But who is preparing for the societal equivalent?
Which institutions are gaming out scenarios where American casualties trigger domestic backlash? Who is strengthening community security? Who is preparing messaging frameworks? Who is coordinating between Jewish organizations, law enforcement, and policymakers?
Who is thinking about the second-order consequences of a tsunami-like surge in antisemitism?
October 7 taught Israel the cost of ignoring warning signs. The question now is whether similar blind spots exist elsewhere.
Preparing before the shock
None of this argues against American policy choices. Nations must act in their interests.
But responsible leadership demands preparation for consequences, not just victory scenarios.
If confrontation with Iran escalates – whether by design or miscalculation – the United States, Jewish communities, and Israel must be ready for what follows.
Preparation means security planning, community coordination, narrative readiness, and crisis-response systems already in place before events unfold.
It means recognizing that modern battlefields extend into societies, campuses, social media, and neighborhoods.
And it means understanding that antisemitism does not require logic, only a trigger.
The tsunami risk is real.
The earthquake may or may not come. But the conditions for a tsunami already exist.
The author is an experienced global strategist for the public and private sector. globalstrategist2020@gmail.com