Why Israel’s ‘Permanent War’ Strategy Shapes US Foreign Policy Unrecognizably
American foreign policy in the Middle East has become so saturated with Israeli security narratives that it’s hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. Daniel Levy, former Israeli peace negotiator, didn’t mince words: US policy is “so marinated” in the logic of Israeli insecurity and perpetual conflict, they are now indistinguishable according to Al Jazeera. This isn’t just about alliance or shared interests—it’s the adoption of a strategic worldview.
Israel’s doctrine of ‘permanent war’ isn’t a secret. Since 1948, its military posture has been one of constant readiness, justified by existential threats. But over decades, this has evolved into a political tool—perpetuating a state of conflict not just for security, but to maintain dominance and forestall negotiations that might force compromises, especially on the Palestinian issue. When the world’s superpower absorbs this logic wholesale, it shapes everything from arms sales to diplomatic backing at the UN. The US isn’t just supporting Israel; it’s internalizing Israel’s sense of siege and turning it into policy. That’s the real story.
How Israel’s Ongoing Conflicts Drive US Strategic Decisions in the Middle East
Every US administration since the Cold War has mirrored Israeli priorities in the region—sometimes at the expense of its own strategic flexibility. Start with military aid: The US sends Israel $3.8 billion annually in security assistance, a figure locked in by a 10-year memorandum of understanding signed under Obama. This is not just a check; it’s a guarantee that Israel’s military will always outpace its neighbors, emboldening its leaders to reject peace overtures or escalate operations in Gaza or Lebanon with little fear of US reprisal.
The alignment runs deeper. When Hamas launched its attack on October 7, 2023, Washington’s response was immediate and unambiguous: “We stand with Israel.” US aircraft carriers moved to the Eastern Mediterranean, a show of force that signaled to Iran and Hezbollah, “Back off.” The Biden administration rushed arms—precision bombs, interceptors for Iron Dome—while vetoing UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire. The message: Israeli security concerns define the boundaries of US action.
This posture has ripple effects. By tying its hands so closely to Israeli interests, the US strains relationships with key Arab states. Saudi Arabia’s normalization talks with Israel stalled after the Gaza war. Egypt, once a lynchpin for US regional diplomacy, has publicly criticized US blind spots on Palestinian suffering. When the US echoes Israel’s framing of every conflict as “counterterrorism,” it loses credibility as an honest broker—just as China and Russia are angling for influence. The US is betting that Israeli security equals regional stability, but the data says otherwise: Since 2000, every major Israeli military campaign in Gaza has produced cycles of retaliation, not resolution.
The Risks of US Policy Being Subsumed by Israeli Narratives in a Volatile Region
The cost of adopting Israel’s permanent war mindset is rising—and not just in lost diplomatic capital. When Washington mirrors Jerusalem’s every move, it forfeits independent judgment. That means less room to broker ceasefires, less leverage to demand accountability for civilian casualties, and fewer options for long-term solutions. In a region where alliances shift fast, this is dangerous.
Escalation is a real risk. US military assets clustered around Israel make American forces a direct target if conflicts expand. Iran’s April 2024 missile barrage, the first direct attack on Israeli soil, triggered fears of US-Iran war. The more the US is seen as Israel’s co-combatant, the higher the odds of getting pulled into wars it didn’t start—and can’t easily finish.
Washington’s regional credibility is also on the line. Key partners like Jordan and Qatar have warned that unconditional US support for Israel erodes trust and complicates counterterrorism cooperation. Polls from Zogby Research show that by 2023, 80% of Arab respondents doubted the US could act as a fair mediator in any peace process. That’s not just a PR problem—it’s a strategic liability when rivals like China are offering alternative diplomatic forums.
Addressing the Argument: Why Some Defend the US-Israel Policy Alignment
Defenders of the status quo argue that the US-Israel alliance is a bedrock of Middle East security. They point to intelligence sharing, joint missile defense projects like Arrow and David’s Sling, and Israel’s value as a counterweight to Iran. The “shared democratic values” argument is a staple in Washington, as is the notion that supporting Israel deters terror groups from gaining ground.
There’s truth here: Israel is a rare US-aligned democracy in a turbulent region, and the intelligence pipeline has disrupted plots from Beirut to Berlin. Historical ties, including the Cold War calculus of backing Israel against Soviet proxies, make disentanglement messy. But the question is not whether the alliance should exist—it’s whether US interests are being defined by Israel’s threat perceptions, or by a clear-eyed assessment of American priorities.
Reclaiming US Strategic Autonomy: A Call to Reevaluate the US-Israel Policy Relationship
If Washington wants to regain its strategic autonomy, it must stop treating Israeli security narratives as gospel. That means conditioning military aid on clear benchmarks—like progress toward a two-state solution, or compliance with international law on civilian protection. It means demanding an end to settlement expansion if peace is truly the goal. Congress and the White House need to ask: Does every Israeli military operation really serve US interests, or just perpetuate a cycle the US can’t control?
The US should rebuild ties with Arab partners on their terms, not as a function of Israeli approval. That means reopening channels with the Palestinian Authority, supporting reconstruction in Gaza, and engaging regional actors—Turkey, Egypt, even Iran—on issues beyond the Israeli lens. Diplomacy means talking to everyone, not just friends’ friends.
No alliance should dictate US foreign policy; alliances work when they advance mutual, not unilateral, interests. The alternative is a superpower locked in someone else’s siege mentality, forever reacting, never shaping outcomes. If the US wants to be more than Israel’s security backstop—a true architect of Middle East peace—it must step out of the permanent war framework and reclaim the initiative. The clock is ticking, and the world is watching.
Impact Analysis
- Israel's strategy of perpetual conflict has profoundly shaped US foreign policy in the Middle East.
- American military and diplomatic support enables Israel to maintain its military dominance and avoid negotiated compromises.
- This alignment influences broader regional stability, affecting US interests and global perceptions.
