The Irony of the US- “Israel” Relationship

The unusual dynamic underscores a persistent power struggle that has become increasingly embarrassing for the US government on the global stage. On multiple occasions, “Israel” has acted independently, even in direct opposition to US interests, particularly in military operations in Gaza and Lebanon. The perception that “Israeli” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu frequently operates unilaterally, forcing the US to play catch-up, further complicates this relationship. This pattern undermines America's global image, suggesting that, despite its status as a superpower, it lacks the influence to effectively control or guide the actions of its closest Middle Eastern ally.

“Israel’s” Prioritization of Self-Interest

“Israel” consistently places its national interests above those of the US, often tarnishing American objectives without facing significant consequences. A notorious example of this manipulation is found in Bob Woodward’s book The Veil, where “Israel” misled the CIA about Sayyad Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah’s involvement in the bombing of US Marines in Lebanon. This disinformation led the CIA to carry out an attack that killed numerous civilians, including children, causing outrage in the region and exacerbating anti-American sentiments. Former CIA Officer Robert Baer remarked that “Israel’s” provision of false intelligence to push its own agenda is not an uncommon practice.

In addition to misleading the US, “Israel” has also sold US military technology to other countries, which sometimes conflicts with American strategic interests. One prominent case involved “Israel's” sale of military drones and technology to China, raising concerns in Washington about the transfer of sensitive US innovations to a global competitor. Moreover, “Israel” has engaged in espionage activities within the United States, most notably the case of Jonathan Pollard, who was convicted in 1987 for passing classified US intelligence to “Israel”.

A Pattern of American Powerlessness

“Israel” has repeatedly disregarded US diplomatic efforts, which has created a humiliating pattern for Washington. Despite agreeing with the US on certain matters, “Israel” often takes one-sided actions that embarrass the American administration. As discussed in a CNN article titled “What ‘Israel’s’ Ground Operation into Lebanon Drives Home About America,” this issue is not new but has escalated since the October 7 Al-Aqsa Flood. The US was left unaware of the impending Sayyad Nasrallah strike, which generated significant international shockwaves. This scenario has repeated itself, with US calls for ceasefires and diplomatic efforts frequently ignored by “Israel”, leading many to question the extent of American influence.

Under Prime Minister Netanyahu’s leadership, “Israel” has often chosen to act first and consult the U.S. later, making the Biden administration appear reactive rather than proactive. Despite months of diplomatic shuttle efforts by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, these initiatives have largely been unsuccessful, casting the U.S. as a mere spectator rather than an influential player in the unfolding Middle Eastern crisis.

Biden’s Reluctance to Use Leverage

One reason “Israel” continues to ignore US diplomatic requests is the largely unconditional nature of American support, especially in terms of military aid. Netanyahu seems to operate under the assumption that no matter how much his government defies American wishes, the US. will continue to provide assistance. This assumption has proven correct so far, as President Biden, despite being one of the most pro-“Israel” American politicians, has hesitated to wield the significant leverage the US holds—such as cutting or conditioning military aid.

This reluctance is due in part to domestic political pressures. Any substantial reduction in aid to Israel could lead to backlash, especially ahead of pivotal U.S. elections. For more information on this topic see Why The US is subservient to “Israel”.

Previous American presidents or candidates who expressed opposition or criticism toward “Israeli” policies faced significant political consequences, including losing elections or failing to secure their party's nomination. For instance, George H.W. Bush conditioned loan guarantees to “Israel” on a halt to settlement expansion, creating friction between Bush and then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. This conflict likely contributed to Bush's loss to Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election. Similarly, President Jimmy Carter, a vocal advocate for peace in the Middle East, faced growing discontent among pro-“Israel” factions, which influenced his loss to Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election. Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign also faced significant backlash within the Democratic Party due to his critiques of “Israel”, ultimately leading to his loss of the Democratic nomination.

Netanyahu’s Survival Strategy

Netanyahu’s government has shifted further to the right, relying on ultra-Orthodox and hardline parties to maintain power. These factions are less concerned with maintaining diplomatic relations with the US and more focused on pursuing aggressive policies in the West Bank, Gaza, and Lebanon. Netanyahu himself has a personal political interest in perpetuating the conflict to divert attention from the legal charges he faces while ensuring continued support from his right-wing base.

No Consequences for Netanyahu’s Defiance

“Israel’s” ongoing defiance of U.S. requests has come at little cost. While relations between Biden and Netanyahu have become strained, with public disagreements over issues such as ceasefires, Netanyahu’s actions have thus far had no substantial consequences. Each time Netanyahu dismisses a US. diplomatic initiative, it weakens America’s standing on the world stage and makes it more difficult for future US efforts to exert influence in the region.

“Israel’s” military operations, especially those causing civilian casualties, also damage America’s global image by association. The use of US-made bombs in “Israeli” airstrikes on Gaza and Lebanon reinforces the perception that the US is complicit in the killing of civilians.

Conclusion

The U.S.-“Israel” relationship is marked by a profound irony. Normally, the weaker party in an alliance follows the lead of the stronger one, but in this case, the US often seems to follow “Israel’s” lead, driven in part by domestic political concerns and the influence of powerful lobbying groups like AIPAC. “Israeli” defiance in the Middle East will likely continue, with American presidents finding themselves in a position where they must support “Israel” militarily and politically to maintain their own domestic standing. As the world watches this unfolding relationship, America’s credibility and influence on the global stage are gradually eroding.