U.S. policymakers preferred a quiet southern front, believing that a major Gaza conflict could complicate efforts to isolate Tehran.
By Hezy Laing
A debate has emerged within Israeli political and security circles over whether Israel sacrificed its deterrence in Gaza for American action on Iran.
The question—sometimes framed as the “Gaza for Iran” theory—asks whether Israeli leaders have effectively deprioritized Gaza in order to preserve or strengthen American backing for a hard line against Tehran during the Trump administration.
Some say that American officials privately encouraged Israel to reduce its security demands for Gaza so that Washington could concentrate on its Iran strategy without being pulled into a broader regional escalation.
U.S. policymakers preferred a quiet southern front, believing that a major Gaza conflict could complicate efforts to isolate Tehran or build regional coalitions.
They say that the combination of shared strategic priorities and American diplomatic signals may have reinforced Israel’s willingness to soften its redlines on Hamas.
These include allowing increased Qatari funding into the Strip, easing certain restrictions on goods and labor permits, and tolerating periodic rocket fire in exchange for temporary calm.
Critics argue that these steps may have unintentionally strengthened Hamas’s governance and military capabilities.
This argument is often tied to Israel’s broader “containment” strategy toward Hamas.
For years, Israeli policy relied on managing the terror organization rather than toppling it: allowing Qatari funds into Gaza, avoiding prolonged ground operations, and assuming Hamas preferred stability over escalation.
Critics now suggest that this approach hardened into complacency, reinforced by a belief that a major Gaza war could distract from the Iranian challenge or complicate relations with Washington at a critical moment.
