Three days into the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran, Secretary of State Marco Rubio made the case for war to the American people in a public press conference:

“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed, and then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn’t act.”

Despite multiple attempts to further clarify his remarks, Rubio’s explanation diverged by competing justifications offered by President Donald Trump, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, and House Majority Leader Mike Johnson. Some observers went as far as to argue that Israel dragged the U.S. into yet another costly and unnecessary war in the Middle East. If credible, Washington’s actions against Tehran resemble a classic case of alliance entrapment, or a scenario in which a state is dragged into an unwanted, costly or unnecessary military conflict by an ally whose reckless action forces the partner to choose between supporting the ally or sacrificing alliance credibility.

How can U.S. policymakers — including Utah’s congressional delegation — work with key partners to achieve common security goals without sacrificing the national interest?

Over the past five years, I have been part of an international team studying the extent to which the U.S. has diplomatic leverage over partner states involved in international conflicts. In wars ranging from the Russian occupation of Ukraine to Israel’s war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, we have discovered that U.S. policymakers can effectively pressure leaders to enter peace negotiations, even when concessions are viewed by the public as costly.

The key lies in the U.S.’s ability to credibly shape the beliefs, attitudes and behaviors of ordinary people in the partner state. Why is local public opinion the key to influencing leaders’ goals and strategies? In democratic countries like Ukraine or Israel, leaders must maintain broad, public support to signal the credibility of their wartime goals to allies and adversaries alike. A lack of local support, especially public acts of opposition or protest, undermine a leader’s ability to signal that they have the resolve and ability to stay the course as fighting intensifies.

To shape a partner’s wartime policy, U.S. policymakers must signal support and pressure in ways that resonate with the local public’s support for the government and its sensitivity to the human and material costs of war. When the U.S. signals continued support for a partner’s war effort, domestic attitudes polarize. Government supporters — especially those insulated from direct violence — will be more likely to double-down on the war effort and, as a result, less likely to support peace talks. Opposition supporters, in turn, will react to external aid by increasing support for any change in policy that weakens the incumbent’s political power. They will double-down on their opposition to their government’s strategy and will be more willing to grant concessions to end the fighting.

When U.S. policymakers pressure a partner to change course, however, the opposition maintains flexible preferences toward concessions, whereas government supporters resist external attempts to alter wartime strategy. Government supporters may resist even credible U.S. pressure during wartime, because such signals threaten not only the national interest, but also their sense of social identity. External pressure can be interpreted as a violation of sovereignty, triggering nationalist backlash and reinforcing local resistance. At the same time, conceding under foreign pressure risks undermining the partner government’s credibility and resolve, both essential elements to victory.

Given such constraints, how should Washington — including Utah’s delegation — approach its relationship with Tel Aviv as the war with Iran continues to escalate? Three factors come to mind.

First, even in societies widely viewed as highly resolved — Israel in its war with Hamas and Ukraine in its war with Russia — segments of the public remain responsive to signals that affect the costs and sustainability of war. If Washington wants to distance itself from Tel Aviv, U.S. policymakers should focus their diplomatic messages on Israelis who oppose Netanyahu, especially those directly exposed to violence from Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Second, the risk that American diplomacy “backfires” is highest for Israelis ardently committed to the Netanyahu government, especially those insulated from the direct costs of the conflict. To avoid blowback, however, U.S. policymakers must signal to government supporters (government elites and ordinary voters) that U.S. support is vital to sustain both the war effort and their ability to stay in office. Government supporters — the very constituencies often assumed to be most hawkish — can be responsive to allied signals when those signals imply meaningful changes in wartime support.

Third, the Trump administration should be aware that the ability to secure and sustain a peace settlement entails a fundamental tension. U.S. pressure may help compel settlement among Israelis or Ukrainians but can also undermine local confidence that Washington will sustain the political and material support needed to prevent a renewed war in the future. Sound diplomacy therefore requires U.S. policymakers to follow a Goldilocks principle — applying enough pressure to bring partners to the negotiating table, but not so much that it raises fears of alliance abandonment once the ink on a peace settlement dries.

Austin Knuppe is the director of the Heravi Peace Institute and an assistant professor of political science at Utah State University. He writes, teaches and trains individuals on peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction in countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.