As fighting intensifies between the United States and Iran over tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, Israel — a key player in previous Iran-related conflicts — has remained outside direct military involvement.

Unlike earlier confrontations, when Israel carried out strikes against Iranian targets, the current conflict has seen no Israeli attacks on Iran and no major Iranian missile strikes against Israeli cities. However, this does not indicate a change in Israel’s long-term strategy toward weakening Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities.

For Washington, the conflict is largely focused on protecting freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for global energy supplies. Israel, however, has less direct dependence on the waterway, reducing the incentive for immediate military participation.

Israel may also see limited benefit in opening another front. Direct involvement could expand the conflict into a wider regional war involving nuclear issues, Lebanon and other Iran-backed groups, while the United States continues to pressure Tehran militarily.

The current situation provides Israel with a strategic advantage: Iran’s capabilities are being weakened while Washington carries the main military and political burden, and Israel avoids direct Iranian retaliation.

Iran, meanwhile, also appears reluctant to involve Israel. Opening a direct front with Tel Aviv could shift attention away from the Strait of Hormuz and transform the conflict into a broader Iranian-Israeli confrontation, increasing pressure on Tehran.

The absence of Israeli involvement does not represent an agreement between the two sides, but rather a temporary alignment of interests. The situation could change if Iran attacks Israel, US objectives expand, tensions with Hezbollah escalate, or domestic political factors influence Israeli decisions.

For now, both Iran and Israel appear to benefit from avoiding direct escalation, but the balance remains fragile and could shift quickly with any major development.