The use of coercive methods in foreign policy has a long history, but their systematic transformation into foreign policy tools became evident during the colonial era. In literature, coercive diplomatic practices employed by Britain, which pursued expansionist ambitions on a global scale to protect and expand its interests in various geographies, are referred to as “Gunboat Diplomacy” from the mid-18th century to the end of the 19th century.
In gunboat diplomacy, a state with naval power uses its warships to exert pressure on weaker players and impose its interests. A demonstrative deployment of one or more warships is usually used in this method to convey a political message and to force the target state or local authority to act in the desired manner. Thus, it is a pressure mechanism that seeks to achieve diplomatic results through the demonstration of power rather than through the use of direct force.
As a result of the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has become the hegemonic power within the unipolar international system and has frequently used coercive methods in its foreign policy. However, recent policies, particularly in the Middle East, indicate that these traditional coercive strategies have taken on new forms. It is possible to view the current U.S. approach in the region as an updated version of the “Gunboat Diplomacy” historically practiced by Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries.
In the new era, while the U.S. has reduced direct military engagements, it has developed indirect intervention strategies against armed actors that threaten its interests. In this context, I define the controlled U.S. engagement of Israel at specific moments of crisis as “Leashrael Diplomacy” in a new conceptual framework that refers to the role Israel plays as a proxy power directed by Washington and deployed on the ground when necessary.
“Leashrael Diplomacy,” derived from the combination of the words "leash" and "Israel," refers to the transformation of Israel into a limited but highly effective foreign policy instrument available to the United States. Israel functions as a controllable ally "on the leash" of the United States, allowing it to conduct regional military operations without direct involvement by the United States. Especially when it comes to Iranian-backed militias, non-state armed groups such as Hezbollah and Houthis, or state actors such as Iran and Syria, Israel’s devastating military strikes are used as a means of imposing pressure and sending messages.
It is the basic logic of this approach that Israel’s limited but effective strikes, carried out with U.S. approval, deter these actors from posing a threat to Washington's interests. Consequently, Israel becomes an instrument of “coercive diplomacy” that the United States employs without taking direct responsibility. The actions of Israel are constructed to meet Washington's political agenda, while the U.S. diplomatically supports and partially distances itself from them as required. As a result, the U.S. has both room for maneuver and an opportunity to avoid legal and diplomatic responsibility on an international level.
After the 2002 invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. demonstrated its capacity for direct intervention for the last time. Since then, it has gradually and deliberately ceased to engage in such direct intervention practices. This experience fundamentally shaped the Obama administration's foreign policy approach in the 2010s, as the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan were considered among the biggest strategic failures of the United States since the Vietnam War nearly three decades earlier. Under this new approach, referred to as the "Obama Doctrine," the U.S. avoided direct military intervention, rejected the deployment of ground troops, and instead adopted limited but effective interventions as coercive measures.
The U.S. strategy to stabilize the region and protect its interests in the 2010s included drone strikes in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program. By the early 2020s, it became clear that this policy of indirect and limited interventions was facing a serious setback. As the instability in the region deepened, U.S. deterrence weakened, and the sphere of influence of the U.S. began to contract. It was these developments that called into question the sustainability of the Obama-era policy of avoiding direct intervention.
By avoiding direct intervention and limiting force, the Obama Doctrine inadvertently enabled the Iran-led anti-Western structure known as the "Axis of Resistance" to gain power and increase its influence across the Middle East. As a result of these developments in the Middle East, as well as the threat posed by Russia to European security through Ukraine and China's growing influence in its immediate neighborhood and distant geopolitical areas, particularly in the South China Sea, the U.S. has been experiencing serious strategic squeezes at the global level as a result. As a result of these factors, it became essential that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East be redefined in terms of coercion and military deterrence.
There has been a significant change in the direction of U.S. policy in the Middle East since the year 2020. The United States preferred to avoid direct military engagements due to the costs and limited success of previous strategies, and instead developed "Leashrael Diplomacy," which positions Israel as a proxy deterrent.
In Lebanon, the concept of “Leashrael Diplomacy” was applied for the first time. Taking advantage of the chaotic atmosphere that emerged after Oct. 7, the U.S. encouraged Israel to take action against Hezbollah to avoid the high costs and possible repercussions of direct intervention. Israel launched intensive attacks against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon with tacit U.S. support. The United States used Israel as an indirect deterrent in this instance.
“Leashrael Diplomacy” was also applied in Yemen. Despite Houthi attacks on U.S. and Israeli ships in the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb, the U.S. refrained from direct intervention, while Israel, with covert support, directed the Houthi groups to inflict heavy casualties by launching intensive attacks against Houthi targets. As a result, the U.S. maintained its deterrence through a proxy.
Israel launched an attack on Syria on Dec. 8, 2024, which severely weakened the country's military capability as a result of the power vacuum that emerged following the civil war. With these attacks, the regime's military capacity, which was strengthened with the support of Iran and Russia during the civil war, was largely eliminated, thereby de-militarizing Syria. As a result of this intervention, Israel sought both to break Iran's regional influence and to prevent the Syrian regime from regaining strength in the region.
Iran has been one of the last and most significant areas in which “Leashrael Diplomacy” has been applied. The United States avoided direct intervention against Iran, which it perceived as a threat to its regional interests due to its nuclear program and ballistic missile capability, and brought Israel into play as a military pressure factor. Because of Iran's reluctance and rigidity in the negotiations with the U.S., Washington has further emphasized its indirect pressure strategy.
It was in this context that the U.S. administration chose to use Israel's military power as an implicit threat. Thus, it was intended to entice Iran into a more compromising position at the negotiating table. Contrary to expectations, Tehran's refusal to compromise led Washington to provide more space for Israel's military initiative. As a result, the United States "loosened Israel’s leash” and gave tacit approval to limited but effective attacks on Iran. In an indirect pressure mechanism, these Israeli strikes served to strengthen the U.S. hand in negotiations by damaging Iran both technically and psychologically.
“Leashrael Diplomacy” refers to the U.S. strategy of using Israel as a proxy military power while avoiding direct intervention. A low-cost approach to protecting U.S. interests in the Middle East is the result of the U.S.'s efforts to protect its interests in the region. Deterrence is provided by Israel by conducting limited but effective operations with U.S. approval, allowing the U.S. to avoid military engagement while avoiding international responsibility at the same time.
