29 August 2024
Why does the USA support Israel
https://youtu.be/9AeAfFfTqMk?si=Q6UZqN7EohN9HWXE
SUMMARY
The current geopolitical landscape can be better understood through the lens of Halford Mackinder's theories on the Heartland, the World Island, and the enduring conflict between land and sea powers. Updating Mackinder’s framework to include modern elements like oil and aviation, nuclear weapons and submarines, reveals how NATO and Ukraine’s and Israel's roles are shaped by America's hegemonic foreign policy.
While some believe Israel is pushing the U.S. toward conflict in the Middle East, history suggests otherwise. Yes, the Zionists in power in Israel are interested in cleansing Palestine of all opposition, but before the Iranian revolution, America relied on Saudi Arabia and Iran for its oil needs. The revolution disrupted this balance, increasing Israel's strategic importance. This shift is reflected in American leaders' longstanding support for Israel, often framed as a crucial investment. Lyndsay Grahame, a Republican from South Carolina, said that there could be no better investment than the three billion America puts into military assistance for Israel every year.
It appears that the U.S. might be positioning Israel to provoke a confrontation, potentially giving America a pretext to strike against Iran. This aligns with the broader strategy that began with the Balfour Declaration, where the British recognised the Middle East's growing importance to its interests in oil and the trade routes. Harry Truman’s post-war policies solidified this, embedding Israel as a key player in the region—a so-called "crusader state" serving American interests.
As more moderate voices leave Ukraine and Israel, extremists fill the void, perpetuating conflict. The idea that Israel or Kiev consistently undermine peace agreements might be less about their own ambitions and more about American interference, which prevents a lasting resolution.
Despite the influence of the Israel lobby, which some argue drives U.S. policies against America’s own interests, it's clear that Israel’s role is deeply entwined with American strategy. President Biden’s statement that if Israel didn’t exist, America would have to invent it, highlights Israel's indispensable role in U.S. foreign policy.
Figures like Netanyahu and Zelensky serve as instruments of American strategy, with wars in Palestine and Ukraine being fought to the last Israeli and Ukrainian, respectively. The rationale behind Western, particularly American, foreign policy seems to be driven less by military logic and more by the pursuit of power, financial gain, and a desire for revenge.
Contents
1. Introduction
2. U.S. Support for Israel: Historical Context
3. The Strategic Importance of the Middle East
4. U.S. Geopolitical Strategy Post-Cold War
5. The Twin Pillars Strategy and Israel's Rising Importance
6. The Strategic Role of Israel in U.S. Imperial Strategy
7. The Rise of China and the Belt and Road Initiative
8. Israel’s Role as a U.S. Proxy
9. The U.S. Military Presence and Regional Conflicts
10. The Role of Israel in U.S. Strategic Objectives
11. Netanyahu’s Role in U.S. Strategy
12. The U.S. Good Cop/Bad Cop Strategy
13. The Escalation Strategy in the Middle East
14. The Hormuz Scenario and U.S. Contingency Planning
15. Netanyahu’s Aggressive Policies and U.S. Support
16. The Crusades and Modern U.S. Strategy
17. The Broader Implications for Global Dominance
18. The Future of U.S. Imperial Strategy
19. Conclusion
1. Introduction
This discussion seeks to explain why Israel is such an important part of U.S. foreign policy for world hegemony.
2. U.S. Support for Israel: Historical Context
It is crucial to stress that Israel is an extension of U.S. geopolitical power in one of the most critically important regions of the world. In fact, it was current U.S. President Joe Biden, back in 1986 when he was a senator, who famously said that if Israel didn't exist, the United States would have to invent it. “I think it's about time we stop apologising for our support of Israel, as most of us in this body do. There's no apology to be made—none. It is the best $3 billion investment we make. If there were no Israel, the United States would have to invent one to protect its interests in the region.”
3. The Strategic Importance of the Middle East
First of all, it goes without saying that the so-called Middle East—or a better term is West Asia—has some of the world's largest reserves of oil and gas, and the entire global economy's infrastructure relies heavily on fossil fuels. We are moving toward new energy sources, but fossil fuels are still absolutely critical to the global economy. Washington's goal has been to ensure that it can maintain steady prices in the global oil and gas market, but this is about something much bigger than just oil and gas.
4. U.S. Geopolitical Strategy Post-Cold War
Since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, stated U.S. military policy has been to maintain control over every region of the world. This was stated very clearly by the U.S. National Security Council in 1992 in what is known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine. The council wrote that Washington's goal is to preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to U.S. interests and to strengthen the barriers against the re-emergence of a global threat to the interests of the U.S. and its allies. The regions specifically named were Europe, East Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East/Persian Gulf. The U.S. National Security Council warned that if a foreign power controlled the resources of such a critical region, it could generate a significant threat to U.S. security.
5. The Twin Pillars Strategy and Israel's Rising Importance
In 2004, the U.S. government published its National Military Strategy, where Washington stressed that its goal was "full-spectrum dominance," meaning the ability to control any situation or defeat any adversary across the range of military operations.
Historically, when it came to the Middle East, the U.S. relied on a so-called twin pillars strategy. The western pillar was Saudi Arabia, and the eastern pillar was Iran. Until the 1979 revolution in Iran, the country was governed by a dictator, the Shah, who was backed by the United States and served U.S. interests in the region. However, with the 1979 revolution, the U.S. lost one of the pillars of its twin pillar strategy, and Israel became increasingly important for the United States to maintain control over this crucially strategic region.
6. The Strategic Role of Israel in U.S. Imperial Strategy
It's not just the massive oil and gas reserves in the region; it's also the fact that some of the most important trading routes on Earth go through this region. It would be difficult to overstate how important Egypt's Sues Canal is. It connects trade from the Middle East to Europe, from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean, and around 30% of all the world's shipping containers go through the Sues Canal. That represents around 12% of total global trade.
Directly south of the Suez Canal, where the Red Sea enters the Arabian Sea, there is a crucial geostrategic choke point known as the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, right off the coast of Yemen. More than 6 million barrels of oil pass through this strait every single day [the world consumes roughly 100 mbpd, ndlr]. Historically, the United States has tried to dominate this region in order to maintain control not only of energy supplies, but also to ensure the security of these global trade routes, which are the backbone of the globalised neoliberal economic system.
7. The Rise of China and the Belt and Road Initiative
As U.S. influence in the region has weakened with the rise of a multipolar world, Israel has become increasingly important for the United States, to maintain control. We can see this clearly in discussions over oil prices through OPEC (the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries), which has expanded to include Russia and is now known as OPEC+. Saudi Arabia and Russia, both of which have been adversaries of the United States, now play key roles in determining global oil prices.
Historically, Saudi Arabia was a loyal U.S. proxy, but Riyadh has increasingly maintained a more nonaligned foreign policy. A significant reason for this shift is that China is now the largest trading partner of many countries in the region, and for a decade, China has been the largest importer of oil and gas from the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, through its global infrastructure project, the Belt and Road Initiative, China is moving the centre of world trade back to Asia. In the Belt and Road Initiative, the "road" refers to the New Silk Road, and the Middle East is absolutely crucial to this New Silk Road.
8. Israel’s Role as a U.S. Proxy
This also explains why the United States is keen to challenge the Belt and Road Initiative with its own attempts to build new trade routes, particularly by trying to create a trade route that runs from India into the Persian Gulf and then up through Israel. In all of these projects, Israel plays an important role as an extension of U.S. imperial power in one of the most important regions of the world. This is why Biden said in 1986, and repeated in 2022, that if Israel didn't exist, the U.S. would have to invent it.
On October 18, 2023, Biden reiterated this sentiment in a speech he made in Israel. He stated, "Israel is an extension of U.S. power in the Middle East, and if it didn't exist, Washington would have to invent it." This speech was made as Biden travelled to Israel to support the country during its brutal bombing campaign in Gaza, which many experts have referred to as a textbook example of genocide. Top United Nations experts have warned that the Palestinian people are in danger of genocide by Israel, although the United States continues to steadfastly support Israel.
9. The U.S. Military Presence and Regional Conflicts
Now, on that note, let’s go to the interview with Michael Hudson, a brilliant economist and author of many books, including "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire." Here is a summary of the conversation:
"Israel is a landed aircraft carrier in the Near East. Israel is the takeoff point for American control of the narrative. The United States has always viewed Israel as just our foreign military base. When Britain’s Balfour made his Declaration, it was because Britain wanted to control the Middle East and its oil supplies. After that, of course, when Truman came into power, the military immediately saw that America was replacing Britain as the chief power in the Middle East.
What we're really seeing is that having fought Russia to the last Ukrainian and threatening to fight Iran to the last Israeli, the United States is at the same time sending arms to Taiwan to say, 'Wouldn't you like to fight to the last Taiwanese against China?' And that's really the U.S. strategy all over the world: it's trying to fuel other countries to fight wars for its own control."
10. The Role of Israel in U.S. Strategic Objectives
This conversation was recorded on November 9th 2023. The latest death toll in the war in Gaza is that Israel has killed more than 10,000 Palestinians. The United Nations has referred to Gaza as a "cemetery of children," with more than 4,000 children killed—about 40% of the casualties are children. The United States has continued to support Israel, not only diplomatically and politically, but also by vetoing resolutions in the UN Security Council that called for a ceasefire.
Furthermore, the U.S. has been sending billions of dollars to Israel, not only the $3.8 billion in annual military aid but also tens of billions more.
Hudson: "Certainly, the U.S. is supporting Israel, but it's not an altruistic act. Israel is a landed aircraft carrier in the Near East, and it's the takeoff point for American control of the narrative. From the very time there was talk of creating an Israel, it was always intended to be an outpost—first of England, then of Russia, and finally of the United States. I can give you an anecdote: Netanyahu's main national security advisor for the last few years has been Usi Arad. I worked at the Hudson Institute for about five years, from 1972 to 1976, and I worked closely with Usi there. We made two trips to Korea and Japan to talk about international finance, so we had a good chance to get to know each other. On one trip, we stopped over in San Francisco, where there was a gathering of people to meet us. One of the U.S. generals came over and slapped Usi on the back and said,
'You're our landed aircraft carrier over there. You know we love you.'
Well, I could see Usi feeling embarrassed and tightening up. He didn’t really have anything to say.
The United States has always viewed Israel as just our foreign military base, not as an independent country. When England first passed the act saying there should be an Israel—the Balfour Declaration—it was because Britain wanted to control the Near East and its oil supplies. When Israel was formed in the United Nations, the first country to recognise it was Stalin's Soviet Union, which thought it could have a significant influence over Israel. However, after that, when Truman came into office, the U.S. military immediately saw that America was replacing England as the chief power in the Near East. This shift became even more apparent after the overthrow of the Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953, orchestrated by the U.S. and the U.K.
11. Netanyahu’s Role in U.S. Strategy
So, from the U.S. perspective, it's not Israel that's wagging the American tail—it's the opposite. The U.S. is not so much supporting Israel as it is supporting Netanyahu and his Likud party. This isn't about Israel as a whole, nor is it about the majority of Israelis, particularly the non-religious Israelis and the secular core of the population, who often oppose Likud and its policies.
Netanyahu, much like Zelinsky in Ukraine, serves as a useful tool for the U.S., which benefits from having such an opportunistic and controversial figure in power. The focus of the global outrage at Israel's actions, particularly in Gaza, tends to fall on Netanyahu rather than the U.S. This allows the U.S. to continue its policies without direct blame. For example, the U.S. has been sending plane loads of bombs and automatic weapons to Israel, but when these are used in conflicts, it's Israel that takes the blame, not the U.S.
12. The U.S. Good Cop/Bad Cop Strategy
There's a pretense of the U.S. playing the 'good cop' to Israel's 'bad cop.' You have U.S. officials like Secretary of State Antony Blinken telling Netanyahu to follow the rules of war when bombing hospitals or killing civilians, but these warnings are for show. The reality is that the U.S. is fully backing these actions, providing the weapons and support necessary to carry them out.
Moreover, the U.S. has stationed two aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean and an atomic submarine near the Persian Gulf, all under the guise of not directly involving U.S. troops in the conflict. However, these forces are there not just to support Israel but to counter Iran, which the U.S. sees as the real threat in the region.
The American media often portrays groups like Hamas or Hezbollah as mere puppets of Iran, echoing a similar narrative used in other regions, where leaders are labeled as proxies of Russia or other adversaries. This demonisation of Iran is part of a broader strategy to justify future military actions against it.
13. The Escalation Strategy in the Middle East
The U.S. is pushing Israel and Netanyahu to escalate the conflict, potentially triggering a larger regional war. If Hezbollah or other groups intervene, the U.S. would then have a pretext to expand its military operations, not just against Lebanon but potentially against Syria, Iraq, and ultimately Iran. The Gaza conflict is just the catalyst, the trigger for what some in the U.S. neoconservative circles see as an opportunity to finally confront Iran.
Controlling Middle Eastern oil is key to U.S. global strategy. By controlling these resources, the U.S. can exert pressure on any country that attempts to resist its unipolar dominance. The wild card here is Saudi Arabia, which plays a crucial role in global oil markets. If Saudi Arabia were to reduce oil exports, it could significantly disrupt global markets, potentially forcing the U.S. to reassess its strategies. However, Saudi Arabia’s vast monetary reserves are heavily invested in the U.S., giving Washington a form of leverage. The U.S. effectively holds Saudi Arabia hostage, not just through its control over oil but also through financial mechanisms.
14. The Hormuz Scenario and U.S. Contingency Planning
One scenario that has been discussed for decades is the possibility of Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow passage through which a significant portion of the world’s oil supply flows. If Iran were to sink a ship in the strait, it could block this critical sea lane, which would cause a massive disruption in global oil supplies. This scenario would also provide an excuse for Saudi Arabia to halt oil exports without directly confronting the U.S., as the blockade could be blamed on Iranian actions.
The U.S. is aware of these possibilities and has likely factored them into its contingency planning. By triggering a conflict in the region, the U.S. could potentially manipulate oil prices and exert greater control over global energy supplies, similar to its strategy in Europe when it cut off Russian gas supplies during the Ukraine conflict.
15. Netanyahu’s Aggressive Policies and U.S. Support
In this context, Netanyahu’s aggressive policies are not just about Israeli security—they are part of a larger U.S. strategy to destabilise the region and create a pretext for attacking Iran. The U.S. military presence in the region, including aircraft carriers and submarines, is not just about defending Israel but preparing for a possible confrontation with Iran.
Iran, on the other hand, has warned that any attack on its territory would be met with a strong response, targeting U.S. bases and assets across the region. Russia, China, and other countries are also closely watching the situation, viewing the Gaza conflict as part of a broader U.S. strategy aimed at weakening Iran and, by extension, their own strategic positions.
16. The Crusades and Modern U.S. Strategy
Hudson continues: "And that's why I mentioned the Crusades. I've been writing a history of the evolution of financial policy. I've completed two volumes already: one on the Bronze Age Near East, titled Forgive Them Their Debts, and the other on classical antiquity, titled The Collapse of Antiquity.
I'm now working on the third volume, which covers the Crusades up to World War One. It’s really all about how a power with hardly any economic strength at all managed to take over all five of the Christian archbishoprics that existed at the time.
Constantinople was essentially the new Rome, the head of Orthodox Christianity, and the Emperor of Constantinople was considered the emperor of the whole Christian world. It was followed in importance by Antioch, Alexandria, and finally Jerusalem.
The Crusades really began before they attacked the Muslims. They started in the 11th century, and at that time, the Vatican was under threat from the Norman armies that were moving in, seizing parts of France, and expanding into Italy.
The papacy made a deal with the Norman warlords, promising them divine right to rule, recognition as Christian kings, and excommunication of all their enemies. In return, the Normans had to pledge feudal loyalty to the papacy, allow the pope to appoint bishops, control the churches (which owned much of the land), and pay tribute to the Vatican.
Throughout the 10th century, the papacy had been controlled by a small group of aristocratic families around Rome, who treated it as a local political office, much like the mayor of a city or a local administrator. The church was run by these families and had little to do with Christianity itself; it was about controlling church property and ensuring one of their relatives held the papacy.
By the late 11th century, the popes had no troops of their own, so they struck a deal with the Normans. They decided to mount the Crusades, ostensibly to rescue Jerusalem from the infidels (Muslims). However, the reality was that Jerusalem didn’t need rescuing. Throughout the medieval world, particularly in Islamic regions, there was a high degree of religious tolerance, which continued for hundreds of years under the Ottoman Empire. The only group that was intolerant was the Romans, who insisted on controlling all of Christianity to prevent the aristocratic Italian families from taking over again.
The Crusades, which were supposedly about rescuing Jerusalem, ultimately led to the sacking of Constantinople. Two centuries later, by 1291, the Christians lost Acre, marking the failure of the Crusades against the Near East. I think you can see the parallel here. Most of the Crusades were not fought against Islam, because Islam was too strong. Instead, the Crusades were largely fought against other Christians. The fight of Roman Christianity was essentially against the original Christianity that had existed for the previous ten centuries [the Christianity dominated by the oligarch families in Northern Italy, ndlr].
Today, we are witnessing something similar. Just as Rome appointed the Normans as rulers—like William the Conqueror in England and Sicily—the U.S. appoints leaders such as Zelensky in Ukraine, Netanyahu in Israel, and various client oligarchs too in Russia and dictators in Latin America. The U.S. view of the world is not just unipolar; for the U.S. to maintain unipolar control, it must treat any foreign state or president as a feudal subject, owing feudal loyalty to the United States.
Just as the Inquisition was formed in the 12th century to enforce obedience to Rome, today, the U.S. uses institutions like the National Endowment for Democracy and other organisations controlled by figures like Victoria Nuland to enforce its will. The strategy of the Roman takeover, the way it prevented other countries from becoming independent of Rome, is almost identical to what we see in American national security reports on how to control other countries. That’s the fight we’re seeing today—against the global majority.
In this modern parallel, while Constantinople was looted and destroyed by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, countries like Russia, China, and Iran have not been looted. The only thing the United States can do now, as it sets up its military plan to attack Iran, is to...
17. The Broader Implications for Global Dominance
This dynamic is not just about the Middle East. The U.S. is using the conflict to reinforce its unipolar dominance globally, drawing parallels with how Rome used the Crusades to expand its influence. The Crusades, often framed as religious wars, were in reality about control—control over trade routes, resources, and strategic territories. Similarly, the U.S. is using Israel as a proxy in its broader strategy to maintain control over critical regions and resources.
The U.S. is also using legal and judicial mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), to further its agenda. While the ICC has been used to target adversaries like Russia, the U.S. itself remains largely immune from prosecution, despite being heavily involved in conflicts around the world, including supplying arms and support to Israel in its operations in Gaza.
18. The Future of U.S. Imperial Strategy
The broader implications of this strategy are significant. As the world moves towards a multipolar order, with rising powers like China and Russia challenging U.S. dominance, the U.S. is increasingly relying on military power and proxy conflicts [as opposed to diplomacy and institutions, ndlr] to maintain its influence. The support for Israel is a key part of this strategy, but it is not about Israel per se—it is about maintaining control over the Middle East and, by extension, the global order.
Saudi Arabia, India, and Turkey are potential wild cards in this strategy. Their actions in response to the U.S.-Iran-Israel dynamic could significantly impact the outcome of these geopolitical maneuvers. If these countries align with Iran or challenge U.S. actions, it could lead to a significant shift in the balance of power in the region.
19. Conclusion
In conclusion, the U.S. support for Israel is deeply intertwined with its broader imperial strategy. It is not just about supporting an ally; it is about using Israel as a tool to maintain control over one of the most strategically important regions in the world. This strategy has historical parallels with the Crusades, where control over key regions was framed in communication terms as a religious mission, but was fundamentally about power and influence.
As global dynamics shift, with the rise of new powers and the decline of U.S. hegemony, the stakes in the Middle East are higher than ever. The U.S. is likely to continue its strategy of using Israel and other proxies to maintain its dominance, but this approach may face increasing challenges in the coming years. The outcome of these conflicts will shape the future of the global order, with significant implications for energy security, trade, and international relations.
