Historical Use of Leverage: U.S. Presidents Containing Israel
Throughout the twentieth century, U.S. presidents exercised economic and diplomatic pressure to influence Israeli behavior when it conflicted with American interests. Dwight Eisenhower demonstrated his resolve by using sanctions to force Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula during the Suez Crisis of the 1950s. This approach became a model for future administrations that sought to realign Israel’s actions with broader American goals. Ronald Reagan, in the 1980s, delayed the shipment of F-16 jets to Israel during its violent invasion of Lebanon, further reinforcing this precedent. In the 1990s, George H.W. Bush also applied pressure by threatening to withhold $10 billion in loan guarantees in response to Israel’s settlement expansion.
These examples show that U.S. presidents once managed to leverage financial and military aid to constrain Israeli actions. Presidents Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush used diplomatic and economic tools to rein in Israel’s behavior, protecting U.S. strategic interests. The U.S. could employ leverage not only to control military escalation but also to check settlement growth and other controversial Israeli policies. Such pressure allowed Washington to maintain its broader influence in the region while still providing crucial support to its ally. These efforts from previous administrations established a precedent that the U.S. could manage Israeli policies when they threatened U.S. interests.
A Year of Shift: The Collapse of U.S. Leverage Under Biden
In the past year, the Biden administration’s inability to influence Israeli behavior has exposed a deep collapse in U.S. leverage. During Israel’s recent Gaza and Lebanon military campaigns, it has become evident that Washington has little control over Tel Aviv’s decisions. President Biden publicly called for ceasefires, but Israeli leaders blatantly ignored his pleas and continued their aggressive military operations. While Biden’s administration called for diplomacy, senior officials such as Amos Hochstein and Brett McGurk privately supported Israel’s military actions. This situation highlights the alarming divergence between the president’s public policy positions and the actions of key figures within his administration.
The loss of leverage was made especially clear when Israel disregarded Biden’s objections and continued its military operations in Lebanon. Hochstein and McGurk assured Israeli leaders of U.S. support for ramping up military pressure against Hezbollah, despite warnings from the Pentagon and State Department. The Biden administration’s inability to rein in its own officials, who pushed Israel toward escalation, reveals a dangerous shift. Unelected officials now seem to hold greater influence over U.S. foreign policy decisions than the president himself. This internal conflict shows the decline of U.S. influence in the Middle East, with Israel acting independently of Washington’s oversight.
Unelected Officials Driving U.S. Policy in Israel’s Favor
Amos Hochstein and Brett McGurk have become prominent figures shaping U.S. policy toward Israel, often acting in direct contradiction to the president’s public statements. These officials privately reassured Israel of continued U.S. support for military escalations in Lebanon, undermining the president’s calls for a ceasefire. Additionally, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew and Gaza envoy David Satterfield have advocated for policies that prioritize Israel’s interests over broader American diplomatic goals. Their endorsement of Israel’s military operations in Gaza, which include bombings and civilian casualties, demonstrates how unelected officials are aligning U.S. actions with Tel Aviv’s objectives. These maneuvers further illustrate how parts of the U.S. government now appear to serve Israel’s strategic needs.
Lew and Satterfield’s influence is particularly visible in their May 2024 communications to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, where they praised Israel’s handling of humanitarian aid in Gaza. This endorsement of Israel’s policies came despite criticism from international bodies and concerns raised within the State Department. Their stance has allowed the continued delivery of heavy weaponry to Israel, even after President Biden expressed concerns about Israel’s actions in Rafah. These actions raise serious questions about who controls U.S. foreign policy when unelected officials work behind the scenes to subvert the president’s directives. As a result, Washington has become a passive player, reacting to Israeli demands rather than guiding policy in the region.
Tel Aviv’s Increasing Dictation Over U.S. Policy
The recent developments in Gaza and Lebanon show how Tel Aviv increasingly dictates U.S. policy decisions, rather than the other way around. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued military operations with complete disregard for U.S. diplomatic concerns, showing how little influence Washington holds. Netanyahu’s ability to manipulate the U.S. Congress and his deep relationships with key U.S. officials have further entrenched Israeli control over American policy. The power dynamics have shifted, and Washington is now subservient to Tel Aviv’s military ambitions, as seen in Israel’s recent disregard for Biden’s objections. These actions highlight how Israel has successfully positioned itself as the dominant force in its relationship with the United States.
The invasion of Rafah, despite Biden’s clear opposition, demonstrates the degree to which Israeli leadership now ignores U.S. concerns. Netanyahu’s disregard for U.S. interests reflects a new reality where Washington can no longer influence Tel Aviv’s actions through economic or military leverage. Pro-Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC have played a critical role in ensuring that U.S. politicians remain loyal to Israeli interests, regardless of their broader implications. Politicians who have dared to challenge Israeli policies often face financial retaliation and political backlash from powerful pro-Israel organizations. As a result, U.S. policy in the Middle East is increasingly shaped by Israeli interests, with Washington unable to exercise its once-strong influence.
The Financial and Diplomatic Costs of Unquestioning U.S. Support
The U.S. continues to bear the financial burden of its unwavering support for Israel, funneling billions of dollars in military aid each year. This economic support enables Israel’s military operations, particularly in Gaza and Lebanon, at great cost to American taxpayers. U.S. diplomatic credibility has also suffered because of its unconditional backing of Israel, particularly in the face of increasing civilian casualties. Israel’s military actions, which are shielded by U.S. diplomatic protection at global institutions like the United Nations, further destabilize the Middle East and damage Washington’s relationships with other key actors. Despite these consequences, Israel continues to act with impunity, knowing that American support remains unwavering.
This financial and diplomatic alignment with Israel has far-reaching implications for U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond. Countries in the Global South and other parts of the world increasingly view U.S. foreign policy as hypocritical, supporting human rights selectively based on strategic alliances. U.S. actions to shield Israel from international scrutiny erode its already low moral standing and complicate its diplomatic efforts across the globe. As long as the U.S. remains deeply entangled in supporting Israeli military operations, its influence and standing in the international community will continue to wane. The price of this alliance is becoming clearer, as the U.S. appears to be paying not just financially but diplomatically for Israel’s continued military actions.
The Erosion of U.S. Power in the Middle East
The decline of U.S. leverage over Israel signals a broader erosion of American influence in the Middle East and the world. Past U.S. presidents exercised real power when they chose to restrain Israeli actions that endangered American strategic interests. Today, the Biden administration seems powerless to influence Tel Aviv, which now acts with greater independence and disregard for Washington’s diplomatic objectives. As pro-Israel figures within the U.S. government prioritize Israeli military goals, the U.S. appears to be losing its ability to shape outcomes in the Middle East. Israel’s growing dominance since October 7th shows the end of an era where Washington held the upper hand against Israel.
Netanyahu’s continued disregard for U.S. interests, coupled with his ability to manipulate U.S. political institutions, showcases a deep shift in power dynamics. As long as U.S. policy remains shaped by Israeli interests, the broader U.S. foreign policy apparatus will continue to lose its ability to act as an independent global power. This reality reflects the collapse of U.S. influence in the Middle East, where Washington now finds itself following Israel’s lead rather than guiding regional developments. The consequences of this shift will be felt far beyond the region, as America’s diminished role impacts global security and stability. Washington’s relationship with Israel has transformed, with the U.S. increasingly subordinated to Tel Aviv’s strategic goals.
Tel Aviv’s Dominance: The Consequences of Lost U.S. Leverage
The current relationship between the U.S. and Israel reflects a dangerous imbalance where Washington’s foreign policy is increasingly driven by Tel Aviv’s interests. The Biden administration, unable to assert its authority over unelected officials who align more closely with Israeli objectives, has lost control of U.S. policy. Instead of guiding Israeli actions, the U.S. now follows Tel Aviv’s lead, with pro-Israel figures within the government dictating military and diplomatic strategies. The unchecked dominance of Israeli interests in Washington signals the collapsing of U.S. power in the Middle East.
