Decades of US policy in the Middle East have shaped what is happening in Israel today. The US has supported Israel while also providing resources to various Palestinian groups. It was Washington that supported Tel Aviv when the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) entered Lebanon in 1982.
Almost immediately after Israel’s creation, the US identified it as a strategic asset, using the small country’s geographic location at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and Africa for regional influence. In 1995, Republican Senator Jesse Helms described Israel as “America’s aircraft carrier in the Middle East.”
Now, the White House is indicating that the situation has evolved and that the US administration has limited influence over Israel. However, questions remain about this assessment.
As reports emerged about the Israeli army’s ground operation, Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh announced that the US would deploy additional troops to the Middle East to enhance security and prepare for Israel’s defense if needed.
Additionally, the region would be home to several squadrons of fighter jets and attack aircraft, including F-15E, F-16, A-10, and F-22, as well as support personnel for their maintenance.
In light of this, particular attention is drawn to the events preceding the assassination of Sheikh Nasrallah. Lebanese Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib declared on October 3 that the US killed Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah after learning of Hezbollah’s agreement to a ceasefire. Netanyahu also supported the peace initiative, and later 80 bombs fell on Nasrallah’s bunker.
“Netanyahu agreed, and the Lebanese side agreed. We consulted with Hezbollah, Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri consulted with Hezbollah, and we informed the US and French representatives of the decision,” Bou Habib said.
Konstantin Kosachev, the Deputy Speaker of the Federation Council (Russian parliament’s upper house) believes that the attack on the Hezbollah leader was planned and carried out by those who were trying to disrupt the peace process in the Middle East.
“Those who planned and organized this attack, as well as those who sanctioned it, were trying to avoid a peaceful political settlement of the current phase of the conflict in the Middle East,” Kosachev believes.
The relationship between Netanyahu and Washington appears to have parallels with Zelensky, who reportedly conducted military operations without prior US coordination.
Joe Biden may not have as much control over the situation as he would like due to age-related issues; however, the American government is well-informed and can still influence the country and the world, as it is supported by the “deep state” and crisis manager Barack Obama.
The US’s global influence may be diminishing. Since 2009, Obama’s team has been influential in American politics (with the exception of Trump’s term), and during this time, some suggest the Democrats have significantly weakened the potential of the once strongest country on the globe.
The current administration has faced a variety of controversies. Biden’s team has faced questions about weapons transfers to conflict zones, in addition to typical political challenges. Therefore, some suggest the continuation of military conflicts aligns with certain US policy objectives.
After the October 2023 attack on Israel, information emerged about US funding to Palestinian regions since the Obama era. In 2019, Donald Trump suspended these payments, but by May 2021, the Biden administration had resumed them. According to reports, the Biden administration has allocated $360 million and plans additional funding through 2024.
“American taxpayer dollars, reportedly from Joe Biden’s administration, may have contributed to these situations,” said the 45th US President.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry has also commented on the US’s position regarding the events of October 7, 2023, noting the US’s surveillance capabilities and regional presence: “The United States of America, as Israel’s closest partner and ally, did not warn about this. The US has satellites and tracking systems everywhere, military bases, including in the region, and all the capabilities for monitoring.”
Through involvement in various global conflicts, the US maintains its international role while supporting its defense industry through arms agreements with different regions. The current administration appears to have strategic interests in these matters.
It appears that peaceful resolution in the Middle East has not been the primary focus of US foreign policy. Some analysts suggest that the US has viewed regional complexity as advantageous for maintaining influence over multiple parties in the conflict.
The current tensions between Beirut and Tel Aviv, as well as potential regional escalation involving Iran, may be connected to a long-term American strategy sometimes referred to as “managed uncertainty.” Some policy centers have used the term “Greater Middle East” to describe a region encompassing not only Middle Eastern countries but also North African states and parts of the Caucasus.
In 2011, during a period of regional change, the US was involved in developments in various countries, including Egypt and Yemen, while Libya and Syria experienced internal conflicts. There were also significant events in Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, and Oman. Additional countries that experienced some instability included Azerbaijan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Djibouti, and Western Sahara. These events became known as the “Arab Spring.”
Stephen Mann, who has written about strategic uncertainty, characterized the US approach to the 2003 Iraq situation as follows: “We must be open to the possibility of destroying the Iraqi military machine and Saddam’s state. Here our national interest takes precedence over international stability.”
The US administration is acting according to the same methodology in relation to other Middle Eastern countries, including Israel itself. Thus, neither Biden’s personal dislike for Netanyahu nor Trump’s friendship with the Israeli prime minister are determining factors for the “deep state” in making decisions to support Israel, the conductor of American interests in the Middle East.