Israel and the United States: a new trend: Dmity Shlapentokh discusses the implications of a weakening in American backing of the Jewish state.

• Author: Shlapentokh, Dmity
• Position: Report

During the Cold War, Israel was the staunchest ally of the United States in the Middle East. It goes without saying that the US relationship with Israel continues to be strong. Still, new realities clearly affect this relationship. In comparison to the Cold War era, Israel has become much less important for the United States and, in some cases, it has actually become a liability. Israel's support in the United States, including among the Jewish community, has dwindled at least in comparison to the early years of Israel history. Jerusalem has recognised the new mood in Washington and the emerging complicated relationship between Middle Eastern countries and great powers, especially the United States.

During the Cold War US attachment to Israel, people in Washington asserted, stemmed from ideological reasons: Israel was praised as the only democratic state in the Middle East. At the same time Americans could not forget Jewish suffering during the Second World War. Nonetheless, the major reason for US support of Israel was pragmatic geo-politics; in the process of Cold War geo-political realignment, the Soviet Union ultimately chose the Arab regimes in Egypt and Syria as its allies/proxies after the 1956 Suez War. Consequently, the United States, following the simple logic that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, embraced Israel, providing it with generous economic and military help. Washington also helped to open doors for Russian Jews who started to emigrate to Israel in droves.

Following the end of the Cold War, the situation changed. There was no Soviet Union. Apart from Iran there was no hostile power present in the Middle East, at least of those that could be compared in strength with the Soviet Union. In these new circumstances, Washington hastily reconsidered its vision of Israel. Israel's conflict with the Arab world helped foster anti-American feelings in the region. It also created instability, encouraging the spread of Islamic terrorism and regimes that could well endanger general stability in the Middle East, which remains one of the major sources of American oil.

More importantly, the conflict in the Middle East, or even potential big power conflict in the area, has created or could create an unbearable strain on the US economy even without much rise in oil prices. Indeed, the US economy has been in the process of decline for a few generations now. This can easily be seen if one looks beyond the 'service' bubble to actual goods production, such as steel and cars. In this latter category US decline in the last few generations has been not just relative to overall global production but also in absolute terms. The lack of efficiency and the mercantile nature of the military machine creates additional problems.

At present, the US military is not the holy shrine of patriotism despite assertions of the Pentagon/White House propaganda machines to the contrary. It is, however, a 'cash cow' and/or the last option for employment. Consequently, despite the huge US military budget, the actual translation of dollars into military assets has become increasingly modest. In this regard, the cost of one soldier in Afghanistan/Iraq for just one year is illustrative: it is one million dollars. This is not because soldiers are extremely well paid and treated--the state has, in fact, done its best to minimise payment for their medical bills, education and other benefits--but because the delivery and upkeep of each soldier is in the hands of numerous middlemen/contractors, who try to milk Uncle Sam as much as possible.

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]

Such a mercantilisation of the army had never existed in the past, and it is the reason why the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the United States' enemies are poorly trained guerrillas, cost the treasury almost the same as the arms race with the Soviet Union in the midst of the Cold War. This explains why Washington decided basically to abandon both Iraq and Afghanistan regardless of the long-term consequences. Washington plainly has no resources for new big conflicts in the Middle East, even for a war with Iran, a state that both Washington and Jerusalem regard as a mortal threat.

Additional problems

The rise of China has created additional problems. Increasingly perceiving Beijing as its...