U.S. Trades Ukraine for Israel as Middle East Slips Away

Editor’s Note: Chinese scholar Zhu Zhengyu offers the insight that Trump’s transactional approach prioritizes Iran over Ukraine in his vision of the American empire.

---

1.Trump Prioritizes Iran Over Ukraine

The United States has not been a mere bystander in Israel’s large-scale strikes against Iran. On the contrary, growing evidence suggests that the Trump administration is driving a “strategic regional trade-off”: sacrificing strategic support for Ukraine in exchange for capability to suppress Iran’s nuclear threat—a classic example of transactional diplomacy.

Trump’s foreign policy doctrine has long been grounded in realism: rejecting “ideological exports” and emphasizing U.S. national interest as the sole compass. Within this framework, the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is deemed far more strategically urgent than the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Hawkish elites within the Republican Party have repeatedly warned that should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, not only would Israel’s security be critically endangered, but the United States’ military and energy dominance in the Middle East would rapidly collapse. Containing Iran, therefore, is viewed as a core interest vital to maintaining the global strategic balance of the United States.

The sequence of events unfolding in Ukraine and Russia seem to confirm the aforementioned assumption: on June 1st, Ukraine’s long-range strike on Russian strategic bombers enraged the Kremlin, triggering massive retaliatory airstrikes by Russia. Yet the White House responded with striking indifference—issuing neither strong condemnation nor additional sanctions, nor any rapid increase in military aid to Ukraine. To many, this signals a strategic withdrawal.

Almost simultaneously, the U.S. urgently redirected 20,000 air defense munitions—originally intended for Ukraine—to front-line positions in the Middle East. This move was neither pre-coordinated with Ukraine nor disclosed in advance, and was completed mere hours before Israel’s strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. It underscores this core reality: the U.S. had prior knowledge and prepared defensive buffers for Israel’s operation. This was no “coincidence”—it was coordinated strategy. Washington’s pullback from Ukraine was meant to free up both resources and political space to prepare for a possible Iranian retaliation. The Trump administration has neither openly admitted to coordinating with Israel nor sought to distance itself. On social media, the President issued a direct warning to Iran: “If you don’t compromise, you’ll be left with nothing.” This language does not reflect mediation—it reflects pressure. This is the true essence of transactional diplomacy: not the preservation of order through rules, but the pursuit of short-term optimal outcomes through the exchange of power.

2. The Accelerated Devaluation of U.S. Strategic Assets in the Middle East

While this logic of trade-offs may create tactical opportunities, it is simultaneously undermining the structural influence of U.S. strategy in the Middle East. Successive U.S. administrations have regarded “preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons” as a red-line policy, though their approaches have varied: President Obama sought to lock in constraints through agreement, leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), using diplomacy to limit Iran’s nuclear program; during his first term, Trump preferred maximum pressure and unilateral withdrawal, aiming to isolate Iran and dismantle the agreement through sanctions; the Biden administration attempted to restore multilateral negotiations while maintaining pressure, promoting a framework that exchanged sanctions relief for nuclear restrictions, and exercised caution in restraining Israel to avoid military escalation, thereby preserving regional stability and diplomatic leadership. In contrast, the current Trump administration finds itself in a strategic dilemma—resuming nuclear talks while tacitly allowing allies to disrupt the process through force. The most direct consequence has been the complete collapse of the U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiation mechanism. Following the assassination of top Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists and the severe damage inflicted on the Natanz enrichment facility, Iran immediately announced its withdrawal from negotiations, bringing a definitive end to an already fragile diplomatic channel.
On June 3, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi lays a wreath at the grave of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who was killed in southern Beirut, Lebanon.
Source: Associated Press

More seriously, the U.S.’s tacit approval of Israeli actions has deepened Iran’s “fortress mentality”—Tehran no longer believes Washington harbors any intention of mediation in the Middle East, but instead sees the U.S. as a political accomplice in the airstrikes on Iran. Iran has positioned the U.S. as the behind-the-scenes supporter of Israeli actions and explicitly stated that “the U.S. cannot shirk responsibility.” While Arab nations have maintained a surface-level restraint, their private discontent with unilateral actions by the U.S. and Israel is growing. America’s moral claims in the region are being consumed by Israel’s military logic, and its role as mediator is shifting into that of a passive follower. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed that Iran possesses “conclusive evidence” proving the U.S. supported Israel’s attacks. In a statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry declared that the strikes “could not have occurred without coordination and approval from the United States,” and added that the U.S. would be “held responsible for the dangerous consequences of Israel’s adventurism.” This erosion of trust will directly impact America’s voice and credibility in future regional security affairs. If the U.S. fails to reestablish a credible mediation mechanism in the Middle East, its role may be marginalized by more autonomous regional powers or global actors such as China, Russia, or the European Union, ultimately losing its position as a “designer of international order.”

Meanwhile, the long-standing identity of the U.S. as a “mediator” and the diplomatic architecture it has relied upon in the Middle East are undergoing a fundamental erosion. Israel’s large-scale airstrikes on Iran did not gain unanimous support from traditional allies; instead, they exposed the structural decline of U.S. influence in the region. Qatar publicly condemned the strikes as a “serious violation of international law,” breaking with its usual restraint toward U.S.-Israel policies and symbolizing a clear denial of America’s neutral reputation. The United Arab Emirates and Jordan adopted more defensively oriented strategic adjustments: the UAE called for full restraint, while Jordan closed its airspace, elevated military readiness, and urged immediate UN intervention. These actions show that the U.S. can no longer maintain its dual roles as “security provider” and “arbiter of order.” As Israel continues to escalate militarily as a policy tool—and the U.S. fails to promptly intervene or mediate—Middle Eastern countries are increasingly seeking strategic autonomy or turning to multilateral platforms and other major powers (such as China or Russia) for balanced cooperation. This shift not only undermines the moral foundations of the U.S.-led alliance system in the region, but also signals that future conflict management and stabilization paths in the Middle East are more likely to be shaped by “multilateral hedging” rather than “unipolar leadership.”

This erosion of trust is also playing out in the energy sphere. Over the past several weeks, global energy markets have experienced rapid turbulence under the shock of geopolitical conflict. Israel’s June 14 strike on Iran’s South Pars natural gas facility triggered a strong response in the oil markets. Although OPEC+ had just announced a production increase in late May, leading to expectations of adequate supply and falling oil prices, Israel’s precision strike on Iran’s energy infrastructure—though not directly affecting export pipelines—caused significant volatility in prices: Brent crude surged 7% the day after the attack and continued rising; West Texas Intermediate rose more than 5%. Despite long-term sanctions, Iran remains the world’s ninth-largest oil producer, and any disruption in its output could immediately consume OPEC+ spare capacity and create supply-demand imbalances. Even more systemic risk lies in the Strait of Hormuz—a critical passage under Iranian control that handles roughly one-fifth of global oil shipments. Should the situation escalate, even limited interference—short of a full blockade—could disrupt the global energy supply chain and threaten the export security of Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia. Coupled with the precedent set by the Houthis in the Red Sea, markets are increasingly concerned that the fragility of Middle Eastern energy corridors has become a prominent risk factor for global inflation and strategic stability. If Iran chooses to blockade the strait in an “asymmetric fashion,” even for a few days, it could immediately destabilize global supply chains and financial markets.

More importantly, the core of past U.S. strategy in the Middle East was to “maintain deterrence and avoid ignition.” Today, however, it is shifting—almost imperceptibly—toward “tolerating strikes and allowing escalation.” And the backlash from this shift may arrive sooner than expected.

3. The Middle East Stabilization Mechanism at Risk of Collapse: Can the U.S. Return to the Control Room?

Today’s Middle East is no longer a stage passively awaiting Western coordination and intervention, but a new theater filled with uncertainty created by strategic vacuum. Israel’s bold actions are not a reflection of favorable circumstances, but rather a belief that the United States will not stand in the way—a form of transactional trust based on delegated authority in exchange for support. The problem, however, lies in what follows: managing the spillover effects of such a transaction. On this point, the Trump administration may be ill-prepared.

To begin with, while Israel achieved some tactical success—crippling parts of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, air defense systems, and senior command chains—it has not fundamentally shaken the structural foundation of Iran’s nuclear program. Enriched uranium stockpiles are dispersed and difficult to track. Nor has Iran activated its network of proxy forces in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, or altered its nuclear red lines. On the contrary, following the strikes, the Iranian government quickly rebuilt its military command system and launched three consecutive waves of missile retaliation—signaling a level of strategic resilience far beyond what was previously assumed. Given Iran’s retaliatory operations against Israel in April and October 2024, its current counterattack is likely to be broader in scale and intensity, raising the risk that a regional conflict could escalate into full-scale war.

Secondly, while the United States has attempted to maintain a “critical distance” amid the escalation, in reality, it has already entered a state of “quasi-intervention.” Should Iran expand its retaliation to target U.S. military bases or oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, Washington will be forced to choose: either stand by as allies come under attack, or become directly involved in the conflict. Either option would have profound repercussions for its Indo-Pacific strategy and the domestic political landscape.

At the opening dinner of the G7 Summit, leaders issued a joint statement declaring that “Israel has the right to self-defense” and that Iran is “the primary source of regional instability and terror, and must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.” The leaders called for resolving the “Iran crisis” and for broader de-escalation in the Middle East, including a ceasefire in Gaza. Throughout Monday, G7 leaders worked on drafting this statement. Although Trump had initially objected to its diplomatic language urging restraint and de-escalation, he ultimately signed the document.

French President Emmanuel Macron told reporters that Trump was working on a ceasefire plan. But Trump angrily refuted this on social media aboard Air Force One: “Iran should have signed the ‘deal’ I told them to sign,” “What a shame, and waste of human life.” He said. “everyone should immediately evacuate”. Earlier on Jun 16, Trump had hinted to reporters that he felt increased pressure to become more involved in the Middle East crisis. “They want to make a deal and as soon as I leave here, we’re going to be doing something. But I have to leave here,” Trump said. “It’s always better to talk in person.” Trump also expressed confidence that the fighting would soon end.

What is more concerning is that the current situation is prompting many Middle Eastern countries to rethink their security arrangements. Nations such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE have publicly condemned the escalation, while simultaneously accelerating cooperation with China and Russia in areas including energy, arms, and cybersecurity. This strategy of “hedging across multiple fronts” is a rational response to the perceived unpredictability of the United States and marks a gradual “de-Americanization” of regional order.

It is fair to say that the U.S.’s current approach—limited intervention combined with strategic containment—is facing serious backlash. On one hand, it has relinquished leadership, allowing Israel to unilaterally pursue a highly risky military strategy. On the other hand, it has lost its diplomatic identity as a balancing power, creating a dangerous situation in the Middle East where strategic miscalculations thrive in the absence of effective authority.
In his January inauguration address, President Trump declared: “My proudest legacy will be as a peacemaker and a unifier,” he said. “That’s what I want to be—a peacemaker and a unifier.” Trump has also claimed the war in Ukraine could be ended “within 24 hours.” He pledged to push for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, and to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran, stating that “the consequences of failure are unimaginable. We must strike a deal.”

“Five months have passed, and Trump continues to monitor the prospects of U.S.-brokered negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, the U.S. and Iran, and Israel and Hamas. He is beginning to confront a harsh reality: U.S. influence, power, and his much-touted deal-making skills are all facing significant limitations—particularly in the absence of a coherent strategy and an unwillingness to fully leverage America’s advantages,” said Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. diplomat who served under six secretaries of state.

Looking ahead, history offers mixed lessons. Israel has twice struck at the nuclear ambitions of its adversaries—once in Iraq in 1981 and again in Syria in 2007—with drastically different long-term outcomes. Tactically, Israel destroyed both nuclear projects. Strategically, however, Syria opted to pause its nuclear weapons development, whereas Iraq doubled down in pursuit of ultimate weapons. Iran could choose either path. But the reality is this: in the absence of confirmed and irreversible damage to the Fordow enrichment facility, Tehran may see little reason to alter its current trajectory.