Israel’s role in the US war on Iran should remain limited for now, according to Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, even as the conflict keeps putting soldiers, shipping crews and regional civilians at risk. His message is that continued American pressure on Tehran serves Israeli interests without requiring another direct Israeli intervention. That is a careful position in a government not generally known for understating military options.
What did Bezalel Smotrich say?
Speaking at a conference in Yad Binyamin, Smotrich said: “Right now, the state of Israel has no interest in joining the campaign.” Dawn also reported his remarks, including his assessment that the current situation benefits Israel.
The finance minister added that the country was “prepared for any scenario,” leaving room for military action if circumstances change. His comments concerned the renewed American campaign, not Israel’s earlier participation in the wider war. According to the Associated Press, US and Israeli forces initially attacked fixed targets identified before hostilities began on February 28, 2026.
Smotrich’s argument rests on a straightforward calculation: Washington is continuing to strike Iran, while sanctions and wartime disruption place more pressure on Tehran. Israel can gain strategically without immediately putting more of its own forces into combat.
No later report on July 21 indicated that the Israeli government had reversed that position.
How intense is the renewed US campaign?
The United States entered a 10th consecutive night of strikes intended to weaken Iranian capabilities used against shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the Associated Press reported. Iran, meanwhile, attacked or threatened vessels and targeted Kuwait, Jordan and Bahrain.
The human cost has continued to rise. The Associated Press said 17 US troops had died since the war began. President Donald Trump warned that Iran would pay “many times over” whenever it killed an American service member.
Military force has produced an enormous target count without delivering a clear conclusion. David Schenker, a fellow at the Washington Institute, told the Associated Press that the United States struck 13,000 targets during the first six weeks but did not force Iran to surrender.
That gap matters. Former US diplomat Alan Eyre said the Trump administration lacked a coherent strategy for ending the conflict. Christopher Preble of the Stimson Center argued that Washington could keep bombing while Iran retained enough capacity to keep the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed.
Why are Israeli officials sending mixed signals?
Smotrich’s restraint does not amount to a broad Israeli rejection of further action. Defense Minister Israel Katz has said Israel would return to combat against Iran “with even greater force” if necessary, according to the Associated Press.
The Jerusalem Post separately reported that most senior officials in the Israel Defense Forces and Mossad opposed an emerging agreement with Iran and preferred continued sanctions. That report appeared before Smotrich’s comments, but it showed how firmly parts of the security establishment remained focused on maintaining pressure.
The positions are not entirely contradictory. Smotrich is arguing against joining the current phase now, while Katz is preserving the option of attacking later. Still, the difference in tone is significant. One official emphasizes the advantage of staying out; another wants Tehran to know that Israel’s aircraft may not remain parked indefinitely.
For Israelis, that distinction carries more than political meaning. Renewed intervention could bring heavier Iranian retaliation, additional military casualties and wider regional escalation. Remaining outside the present campaign reduces those immediate risks, even if it does not remove them.
Does a longer conflict really benefit Israel?
Smotrich sees sustained American military and economic pressure as strategically useful. The economic consequences, however, extend far beyond Iran.
Before the war, about one-fifth of globally traded oil and natural gas passed through the Strait of Hormuz. Wartime oil prices reached $120 a barrel before dropping sharply, according to the Associated Press. Continued disruption can raise transport and energy costs for countries that have no role in deciding how long the fighting lasts.
There is also no clear evidence yet that heavier bombardment will produce Iranian capitulation. If Tehran can continue threatening Hormuz despite thousands of strikes, Israel may gain from reduced Iranian capabilities while still facing an unstable regional economy and the possibility of another direct confrontation.
Smotrich’s position therefore offers a temporary political and military balance: let the United States carry the current burden, preserve Israel’s freedom to act and benefit from pressure on Iran. Whether that remains an advantage depends on how long the war lasts, how much capability Iran retains and how many more people are drawn into the cost.
