Israel's Influence on American Foreign Policy in the Middle East: A Critical Analysis

Despite popular beliefs, it is clear that Israel does not control American foreign policy in the Middle East. While Israel certainly exerts significant influence, the nuanced relationship between the United States and Israel often results in a more complex and multifaceted approach. Here, we explore several points that support this claim and highlight the limitations of Israel’s influence on American policy.

Theoretical Expectations vs. Reality

One might expect that if Israel were controlling American foreign policy, certain positions and policies would be more consistent and decisive. For example:

Hamas should be immediately released from custody. Unlimited aid for Israel should be provided until the Hamas and Hezbollah threat is neutralized. The United States should encourage the European Union and NATO to not obstruct Israel. US allies should be urged to condemn the terrorist organizations. The Abraham Accords should be expanded. Sanctions on Iran should be increased and publicized.

However, these expectations have not been met by the US, particularly under administrations such as Biden’s. For instance, the Biden Administration has been seen as appeasing the genocidal Iranians and providing substantial aid to the so-called Palestinians, which contradicts any notion of a strong Israeli influence.

The Historical Context of US-Israel Relations

While Israel certainly has more influence than it should, it is important to recognize that the US foreign policy in the Middle East has been consistently inconsistent and not heavily influenced by Israel alone. Many factors contribute to US decisions, and the relationships are complex:

1. De Facto Recognition of Israel

Upon Israel’s founding, the US provided de facto recognition, while the Soviet Union provided de jure recognition. This early recognition shows the complex geopolitical considerations at play.

2. Arms Embargoes and Negotiations

The US implemented an arms embargo that lasted 15 years, as opposed to the Soviet Union, which facilitated arms deals with Israel through Czechoslovakia. These differing approaches indicate a lack of Israeli control over US policy.

3. Diplomatic Pressures and Pressing Accords

During the 1956 Suez Crisis, President Eisenhower forced Israel to withdraw from gains acquired during the war, potentially leading to the 1967 Six-Day War. This decision suggests that Israel did not control US policy during times of crisis. Similarly, during the 1967 war, President Johnson failed to fulfill his commitment to lead an international flotilla to break the Egyptian blockade, contributing to the conflict. This further illustrates the lack of control.

4. Strategic Decisions and Diplomatic Pressures

President Reagan’s decision to sell AWACs to Saudi Arabia, despite Israel’s objections, highlights a policy that diverged from expected Israeli influence. President Bush I condemned Israel for its actions during the first Gulf War, showing that alignment with Israel was not always the priority. The decision by President Bush II to force Israel to accept a Palestinian election with Hamas as a candidate was another instance where US policy did not align with Israeli interests. The controversial nuclear deal under President Obama over Israeli objections further demonstrates US policy making independent of Israeli influence. Henry’s decision to not veto a UN resolution condemning Israel in the United Nations also showcased the lack of Israeli control over US policy. Biden’s decision to restore funding to the Palestinian Authority (PA) without demanding an end to inciting anti-Jewish sentiment and providing armored vehicles and weapons to the PA illustrates another significant deviation from expected Israeli influence. Allowing a UN resolution to misrepresent the status of Shebka farms in Syria as Lebanese was yet another example of US policy diverging from Israeli interests.

These historical examples and current instances highlight the significant and multifaceted influence of Israel on US policy, but also demonstrate how US policy-making is not exclusively or decisively controlled by Israeli interests.

Absence of a Unified US Foreign Policy in the Middle East

There is no doubt that Israel has significantly influenced certain US decisions, particularly those involving Israel’s security and regional stability. However, it is equally clear that this influence is not the sole or decisive factor. The complexity of the Middle East, the interplay of other nations and their interests, and the diverse nature of US policy objectives all contribute to a less unified and more nuanced approach.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while Israel has more influence than it should, it does not control American foreign policy in the Middle East. The US has a complex and inconsistent approach to the region, with a variety of interests and influences shaping policy decisions. This nuanced relationship underscores the need for an independent and more focused US foreign policy in the Middle East, free from the biases and pressures that have historically influenced US-Israeli relations.