Throughout history, small states have been at the mercy of the powerful. From the doomed neutrality of Melos during the Peloponnesian War to the rapid conquests of Belgium, Holland, and Denmark during World War II, the lesson was clear: strategic weakness invites domination. In the global order shaped by two world wars, small states rarely influenced international decision-making. They were often ignored, occupied, or sacrificed on the altar of great power politics.
This began to shift at the end of the Cold War. Technological revolutions, the rise of global trade, and the disintegration of the Soviet Union expanded the maneuvering room for small states. Many began playing outsized roles in shaping global norms, participating in international institutions, and even driving innovation. Finland’s Nokia and Taiwan’s TSMC became global tech giants. Estonia transformed into a digital governance pioneer. Singapore, too, emerged as a hub of financial, logistical, and technological excellence.
Israel stands out among these small states — not just because of its military strength or strategic location, but because of its consistent ability to shape regional and even global decision-making. Like Switzerland, Finland, and Singapore, Israel has developed a credible military deterrent rooted in science, education, intelligence, and elite technological capabilities. From the outset, David Ben-Gurion envisioned a doctrine of qualitative military edge, advanced air power, early reserve mobilization, and — when needed — preemptive strikes. Israel’s transformation into a tech-driven economy, especially its booming cyber sector, only reinforced this position. It allowed the country to transition from a state of reactive survival to one of proactive deterrence.
Yet despite its strengths, Israel remains a small state — geographically compact, demographically limited, and exposed to multiple fronts. The October 7 Hamas attack revealed its vulnerabilities. However, the subsequent confrontation with Iran — known as the "12-Day War" — showed something else: Israel's capacity to diplomatically, militarily, and strategically influence the behavior of a global superpower.
The defining moment came when Israel, following a lethal Iranian ballistic missile barrage, coordinated with the United States on a retaliatory operation. While Israel led the initial wave, Washington joined in the final phase, targeting Iran’s deeply buried nuclear facility at Fordow with B-2 bombers. This action — unprecedented in scale and coordination — suggested that Israel had succeeded in shaping U.S. decision-making, not merely reacting to it. There was also close coordination on defensive systems throughout the confrontation, further highlighting the depth of the alliance.
This is not trivial. Small states rarely drag great powers into conflict — and when they do, it's often due to spiraling escalation, not calculated diplomacy. But in this case, Israel managed to align its strategy with U.S. interests: preventing regional destabilization, containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and projecting strength without committing to a prolonged war. The attack on Fordow demonstrated how a small state, through intelligence sharing, operational success, and diplomatic finesse, could secure superpower involvement on its terms.
Much of this success also lies in timing and political context. Donald Trump, reelected on a nationalist, anti-interventionist agenda, had little appetite for overseas military entanglements. His focus was domestic: immigration, economic revival, and projecting strength without costly wars. Any involvement in the Middle East had to be brief, symbolic, and victorious. Israel’s early success in neutralizing Iranian infrastructure and demonstrating operational control gave Trump the optics he needed: to support a winner, not a liability.
Here lies an important lesson. Israel’s influence stemmed not from victimhood but from credibility. Military capability matters — especially when paired with diplomatic timing. For other small states that are threatened by strong neighbors, like Taiwan or Estonia, the implications are profound: they must first prove they can defend themselves before expecting allied support. Self-reliance is the price of partnership -— especially with a U.S. president who prioritizes domestic interests and minimizes foreign military commitments.
Israel’s relative success in this realm also reflects its multi-dimensional power base. Beyond military might and intelligence, it leverages a world-class Air Force, an agile reserve system, resilient economy and society, and unparalleled innovation in cyber and defense technology. These capabilities are not accidental; they are the product of long-term investments and strategic prioritization, , rooted in the foundational security vision articulated by Ben-Gurion.
Its technological edge has helped Israel not only defend itself but position itself as a valuable regional partner. This was evident in the signing of the Abraham Accords, and more recently in its role in the emerging IMEC (India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor) project — a U.S.-led initiative aimed at counterbalancing China’s Belt and Road. Israel, with its cyber know-how, infrastructure, and regional positioning, has become a linchpin in this new strategic architecture.
Still, one must be cautious in generalizing Israel’s case. Not all small states enjoy its historical legacy, defense culture, or strategic partnerships. Moreover, Israel’s relationship with the U.S. is unique, forged in Cold War geopolitics and sustained by overlapping values and shared interests. Even during the 12-Day War, tensions emerged — Trump reportedly pressured Israel to moderate its response once a ceasefire was declared, wary of escalating into a broader conflict.
Nevertheless, the broader trajectory is instructive. Israel’s wartime diplomacy and operational assertiveness show how small states can move from the margins to the center — if they are prepared, proactive, and strategically aligned.
Therefore, there are also key takeaways for other threatened small states:
First, military success breeds diplomatic leverage. The U.S. stepped in only after Israel had proven its effectiveness on the battlefield.
Second, demonstrating national resolve and self-defense capability is crucial — particularly under leaders like Trump, who prize strength and dislike entanglements.
Third, small states must remain perpetually vigilant, adaptable, and strategically creative. Israel’s quick shift from surprise to counterattack after October 7 underscored its ability to respond and recalibrate under pressure.
Fourth, small states can use their compact governance structures and focused investment strategies to build world-class capabilities. Israel’s tech and cyber ecosystems made it more than just a security recipient — they made it a strategic asset. That same model has lessons for other small democracies seeking to punch above their weight.
In sum, the Iron Swords War and the 12-Day confrontation with Iran showed that small states are not doomed to strategic passivity. With foresight, force, and diplomacy, they can shape outcomes — even in a world dominated by giants. Israel, for all its imperfections, may offer the beginnings of a modern playbook for small state power projection.