America’s ironclad commitment to Israel is more ideological than logical

Two central pillars of U.S. foreign policy discourse have long been to be staunchly pro-Israel, while maintaining the language of Iran as a menacing threat. This dual discourse is so ingrained in U.S. policy thinking that its rhetoric bleeds into American popular culture. But what is the merit of this unquestionable policy position in terms of regional and global security, as well as U.S. national interest? By several measures, taking an ideological approach, rather than a logical one, has been detrimental in all such respects, and Israeli leadership often uses this U.S. blind spot to distract from its own destabilizing actions in the region.

After weeks of increased violence from Israeli security forces against Palestinians, Secretary of State Antony Blinken traveled to Israel to seemingly calm tensions. In front of an audience of press in the context of Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza—which a U.N. rights expert says may constitute war crimes—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked President Biden and Secretary Blinken for “firmly supporting Israel’s right of self-defense.” Indeed, despite protests held across the United States and the world in solidarity with Palestinians calling for accountability for Israeli apartheid and crimes against humanity, the Biden administration did exactly what countless U.S. administrations have done before them: blindly supported Israel. But what was striking about the press briefing with Blinken and Netanyahu was how quickly the PM of Israel pivoted the conversation to the “issue” of Iran and suggested the U.S. should not return to the JCPOA—Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or Iran Deal.

Netanyahu’s segue was not meant to be subtle or restrained. His intention was to deflect the focus from Israel’s actions and lack of accountability in the international community, to the bogeyman he has carefully crafted for decades to justify Israel’s actions that violate international law. By claiming that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, Netanyahu provides Israel with a blank check to take any action under the guise of “defense.” However, as experts and scholars have made clear, Netanyahu’s assertions are false. In fact, renowned British-Israeli scholar Avi Shlaim has gone as far as saying: “Iran is not an existential threat to Israel, but it is a strategic threat. Now, let’s compare the records of these two countries…Israel poses an existential threat to Iran [emphasis added].”

While challenging these notions and policy positions may be considered absurd within the limited scope of the Washington beltway, scholars and activists across the world—including in Israel itself—have long raised such questions. It is precisely because of the almost fanatic nature of standard D.C. thinking on these issues that makes confronting them so crucial. Let’s look at just a few examples of such ideological assumptions that have led to harmful policies.  

While the crowning foreign policy achievement of the Obama administration was the JCPOA, Obama faced forceful pushback from Israel. In 2015, as the deal was being negotiated, Netanyahu took unprecedented steps to undermine an American president by speaking before the U.S. Congress to rebuke President Obama’s diplomatic efforts with Iran. Keep in mind that the JCPOA continues to have the support of the international community, a majority of Americans, and nonproliferation experts. Despite the overwhelming support for the deal, Israel has continued its decades-long sabotage, extrajudicial assassinations of Iranian scientists, and illegal attacks inside Iran with no consequences.

The crux of Netanyahu’s argument against the deal is his claim that it allows Iran a path to a nuclear weapon. Setting aside the fact that this flies in the face of the global consensus of experts, let’s take Netanyahu at his word. There is indeed a better solution to the nuclear issue with Iran. As Noam Chomsky has argued, making the Middle East a nuclear-free zone would be a much stronger nonproliferation success. But while this initiative has strong global and regional support, including from Iran, there are two countries strangely absent: the United States and Israel. Why? To protect Israel’s not-so-secret nuclear weapons arsenal and, as Chomsky explains, U.S. aid to Israel. 

In this case, the U.S. is willing to sacrifice regional and global security for the interests of the Israeli government, and turn a blind eye when that government works to undermine U.S. diplomatic efforts with Iran. Not only does Israel get a free pass to sabotage Iran’s civilian nuclear program and U.S. policy, the Biden administration is still consulting with Israel over current nuclear talks with Iran despite Israel’s flagrant acts of sabotage. This helps to explain why Netanyahu was so forthcoming about objecting to the U.S. return to the deal in front of Secretary Blinken during their press briefing. 

It is noteworthy that the U.S. exhibits the same zealous commitment to Israel outside the case of Iran, and that U.S./Israel alignment has been harmful to regional and global security in other cases as well. Remember that Netanyahu ardently pushed for the invasion of Iraq, claiming in 2002 that, “There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking, is working, is advancing towards to the development of nuclear weapons…If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.”

In addition to damaging the international community’s nonproliferation efforts, and adopting policies that have caused unspeakable destruction in the Middle East and disastrous consequences for the United States, the U.S. policy position of “ironclad” commitment to Israel belies any legitimacy we claim as even-handed brokers in the arena of human rights and the rules-based order we so strongly promote. When the United States opposes the International Criminal Court for seeking to investigate Israeli war crimes, rejects the findings of Human Rights Watch that Israel’s actions constitute apartheid and crimes against humanity, and denies Palestinians the same right to self-defense that we fund and provide for Israel, then we have little credibility as agents of peace. 

There are some reasons to be cautiously optimistic that a shift is happening. The slow progress towards a return to diplomacy with Iran, protests across the U.S. in solidarity with Palestinians, and the fact that U.S. lawmakers now openly oppose weapons sales to Israel and condemn the injustices against Palestinians were unthinkable not so long ago. But our foreign policy is still too often guided by old, imprudent assumptions and far behind the desire of the American people. It is time that the United States government catch up with its people, who are exhausted from endless war, wasted resources, and watching their hard-earned tax dollars harm people abroad, instead of helping people at home.