Support for Israel: A constant of US policy in the Middle East

American political support for Israel far exceeds American support for the war against Iraq or even the war in Afghanistan.

Biden, like his predecessors, doesn't care about resolving the Palestinian issue. The focus has instead been on a separate peace with regional states, but now a business-led strategy has been adopted.
Nathalie Lees
Biden, like his predecessors, doesn't care about resolving the Palestinian issue. The focus has instead been on a separate peace with regional states, but now a business-led strategy has been adopted.

Support for Israel: A constant of US policy in the Middle East

There has been one dominant constant in US policy in the Middle East since 1973. The United States has defined the security of Israel as a priority American national interest for more than 50 years.

The Americans have essentially used the same strategies to achieve this national interest since the 1973 war. The names and places change, but the American approach is the same.

First, an essential American strategy is ensuring Israeli military superiority. In the 1973 war, where the Israeli military suffered heavy losses in the opening days, Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon quickly delivered military supplies and new fighter aircraft.

Notably, the Nixon administration took American F-4 Phantoms out of the American Air Force and flew them to Israel, where the star of David was painted over the American flag, and Israeli pilots immediately began using the planes against Syria and Egypt. Kissinger and Nixon wanted the military balance in the October War to be in Israel’s favour.

On its part, the Biden administration's speedy dispatch to Israel of bombs, anti-missile missiles and other supplies after the Hamas attack aims to enable Israel to bomb Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq as Israel determines necessary while helping Israel protect itself from missile strikes.

A complement to this policy is that the United States consistently condemns terror attacks against Israeli civilians, whether committed by Hamas, Palestinian fedayeen or Hezbollah. By contrast, Washington has always hesitated to directly criticise Israeli military actions, which have killed thousands of civilians in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon.

Such criticism would open debate about American military aid to Israel, and apart from left-leaning Democrats like Senator Bernie Sanders, no one in Washington's political class wants to discuss this traditional American policy.

The second constant American strategy is to bring regional states out of the camp that confronts Israel. Henry Kissinger, in late 1973, aimed to establish between Egypt and Israel an initial military agreement that eventually would lead to peace talks under American sponsorship.

The process Kissinger started and later that Sadat and President Carter finished at Camp David tied Egypt to an American military and economic patron and ensured that no coalition of Arab states could ever pose a significant military threat to Israel as had occurred in the October War.

Fifty years later, the Trump and then Biden administrations have continued the American effort to convince regional states to accept Israel. After Trump’s Abraham Accords, Biden’s team was expending big efforts to reach an agreement for the normalisation between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

These normalisation agreements aim to build a regional group of Israel and key Arab states against Iran and, at the same time, limit this Middle East group’s military relations with China and Russia.

A final constant in the American strategy that is especially important now is Washington’s ignoring of the Palestinian issue. Kissinger never regarded the Palestinian issue as vital; he preferred to work with Arab states, not groups like the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, which he considered terrorist organisations.

Even in the 1979 Camp David negotiations, Carter’s weak domestic political support convinced him not to confront Israeli Prime Minister Begin over the Palestinian issue. Carter instead worked to achieve the core American strategy of a separate peace between Egypt and Israel.

Like Kissinger, the Biden administration worked only with states in the region, and like Kissinger, Nixon, Obama and Trump, Biden does not care much about the Palestinian issue.

Kissinger never regarded the Palestinian issue as vital; he preferred to work with Arab states, not groups like the Palestinian Liberation Organisation. Like Kissinger, the Biden administration worked only with states in the region, and like Kissinger, Nixon, Obama and Trump, Biden does not care much about the Palestinian issue.

The Americans have ignored the Palestinian issue for two reasons.

First, there is little interest from Israeli or Palestinian leaders to enter negotiations. Second, until 7 October, the Biden administration was much more interested in the Ukraine war and the competition with China than with Palestine – just as Nixon and Kissinger were more concerned with exploiting divisions between the Soviet Union and China than with the Middle East before the eruption of the October 1973 war.

On the occasions when the Trump and Biden administrations focused on the Middle East region, they asserted that business, not justice for Palestinians, would bring stability to the region.

Just four weeks before the Hamas attack on Israel, Biden joined Indian Prime Minister Modi and European Commission President von der Leyen in announcing a project to create a trade corridor linking India to Europe through the Arabian Peninsula and Israel.

Biden called the new project "a very big deal", and his national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, said the project would transform the region. Netanyahu praised the project in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September.

This view asserts the corridor will help anchor Israel into the wider region economy while at the same time hindering the attractiveness of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative.

This follows American efforts to limit Chinese penetration of the Gulf region, notably urging Gulf states not to use Chinese telecommunications equipment and pressuring the United Arab Emirates not to allow a Chinese port project to move forward because of its likely military usage.

AFP
This handout picture released by the Saudi Press Agency shows Saudi Foreign Affairs Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan (C-R) walking alongside Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang (C-L) in Beijing on April 6, 2023.

A business-led strategy

Unlike in 1973, business is now a strategy in America's Middle East policy. The drive to limit Chinese influence in the region reminds of the concerted strategy Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon followed during the October 1973 war to achieve American primacy and reduce Soviet influence in the  Cold War.

As he explained in his 2004 book Crisis, during the Cold War, Kissinger was determined not only to bring Egypt out of the Soviet camp and into the American bloc but also to control the peace process after the war and exclude Moscow.

First, Kissinger ensured that Israel won a military victory in the October 1973 war to weaken Syria and Egypt, which were allied with the Soviet Union. Kissinger helped the Israeli army defeat the Egyptian Third Army in western Sinai in the late stage of the war by delaying a United Nations ceasefire that the Soviet Union wanted.

The Soviets understood Kissinger's game and furiously threatened to intervene with Soviet airborne infantry units. Kissinger and Nixon responded by issuing a nuclear alert and a full American military mobilisation that intimidated Moscow.

During this final pause, Israel surrounded the Third Army.  Cairo then had to seek Kissinger's help to secure vital medical and food supplies for its besieged army, and Kissinger pressured the reluctant Israelis to accept the ceasefire.

Kissinger's tough tactics with the Third Army and later with Israel showed that only the Americans, not the Soviets, could deliver Israeli concessions that Arab states wanted.

Unlike in 1973, business is now a strategy in America's Middle East policy. The drive to limit Chinese influence in the region reminds of the concerted strategy Kissinger and Nixon followed during the October 1973 war to achieve American primacy and reduce Soviet influence in the Cold War.

The Soviets could not stop Kissinger in 1974, and 50 years later, we hear little about Russian military influence in the Middle East outside Syria.

AFP
Russian soldiers stand aboard a ship at the Russian naval base in the Syrian Mediterranean port of Tartus on September 26, 2019.

Putin still has a significant potential role, however.

For example, Russia – not the Americans – has open channels to both Israel and Iran and could, in theory, help them understand their two states' new redlines in the region after the Gaza attacks.

In addition, Putin now has direct contacts with Gulf state leaders in a way that Soviet leaders did not. But Riyadh and Abu Dhabi are more interested in business and strategy with China and the United States.

Riyadh and Tehran wanted Beijing as the guarantor of their 2023 normalisation agreement, not Russia. In the modern Middle East, countries like Saudi Arabia and the Emirates can join the Chinese-Russian-India circle of BRICS while at the same time striving for good relations with the United States.

Riyadh is asking for security guarantees and help with its nuclear programme from America — not Russia or China. This balancing policy is possible only until Washington's relations with China deteriorate sharply.

Then, just like Kissinger and Nixon with Egypt in the Cold War, Arab states will receive a choice from Washington: join an American-led bloc or receive no favourable treatment from America.

It is fair to ask how long American aircraft carriers and top officials will focus on the region. The answer is in front of us: the Iranian foreign minister in mid-October warned the Americans and Israel that its "resistance" allies would intervene if the Gaza crisis expands.

Tehran misunderstands American politics, however.

Unprecedented American support for Israel

The majority of Republicans and Democrats strongly support Israel. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives is preparing an authorisation for Biden to use military force against Iran and its proxies if needed.

The last time Congress passed such an authorisation was in 2002, before the war with Iraq. We even saw a Republican Congressman wear an Israeli military uniform in the Capitol building. This political support far exceeds American support for the war against Iraq or even the war in Afghanistan. 

American political support for Israel far exceeds American support for the war against Iraq or even the war in Afghanistan. We even saw a Republican Congressman wear an Israeli military uniform in the Capitol building. 

It is easy to imagine American air strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon. It is easy to imagine American strikes against Iranian-backed militias in Syria and even Iraq. It is even possible to imagine American strikes against Iran if Iran attacks Israel directly.

The sharp American reaction will be in part emotional and in part aimed at deterring Iran and its allies from further military operations against Israel. The most frightening scenario involves Russia allowing Iran and its allies to use Russian military bases in Syria against Israel and the Americans – as retaliation for Washington's help to Ukraine.

It is harder to know where an escalation between Washington and Israel, on one side, and Iran and its allies, on the other, will lead. We do know from history that wars always have unintended consequences.

font change

Related Articles