For decades, the strategic relationship between the United States and Israel was presented in Washington as an unquestionable constant of American foreign policy. Democrats and Republicans competed over who would appear more supportive toward Tel Aviv while any questioning of military aid to Israel was considered almost political suicide. Today, however, this image is beginning to change. Joe Kent, a former US special forces officer, CIA staff member, and political commentator, argues that American society is showing increasing discomfort toward the traditional policy of Washington in the Middle East. According to his analysis, the recent war with Iran did not only highlight the military limits of American strategy, but also the deep fatigue of a large part of the American public opinion toward the continuous financial and military support to Israel.
Joe Kent
The image of Israel cracks in the US
Despite the tactical successes recorded by American and Israeli forces in the field of operations, Kent argues that the political outcome is different. Israel may have achieved military strikes, but it is gradually losing the battle of the image inside the United States itself. This shift is not accidental. The images from Gaza, the continuous operations in Lebanon, the anger of Trump on this issue and the new conflict with Iran have caused serious reactions in large parts of American society. More and more citizens are wondering why the United States continue to spend billions of dollars to support a country that already possesses one of the strongest military machines in the region.
Military aid of 3.8 billion dollars annually
At the center of the discussion is the annual military aid amounting to 3.8 billion dollars provided by the United States to Israel. For decades, the supporters of this policy argued that the money essentially returns to the American economy through the purchase of American weapons systems. Kent rejects this logic as misleading. As he points out, if Washington wishes to strengthen its defense industry, it could invest the same money directly in the American armed forces or in domestic weapons production, instead of channeling it through foreign states.
The Section 224 scandal
His criticism becomes even more intense toward a new initiative included in the American defense spending bill and known as Section 224, which for many in the US acquires characteristics of a huge scandal affecting the White House. According to Kent, the specific provision is not limited to a traditional relationship of military aid. On the contrary, it gradually transforms Israel into a closely integrated partner of the American defense and technological mechanism. The initiative provides for strengthening cooperation in the sectors of defense technology, research, production of advanced weapons systems and data exchange. Its supporters consider that something like this will strengthen the strategic cooperation between the two countries and accelerate the development of new technologies. The critics, however, see a different picture.
Incredible influence of Israel on the US defense system
They argue that the United States grant access to critical technologies and to sensitive security structures without receiving corresponding benefits. According to this school of thought, Washington risks setting a precedent where a foreign country gains a degree of influence in the American defense system that no other ally country possesses. The criticism is not limited to security. Kent considers that the new strategy attempts to change the image of American aid to Israel. Instead of being presented as financial assistance to a foreign country, the goal is to present it as a mutual industrial cooperation that creates jobs in the United States. In this way, he argues, the discussion shifts from the question "why do we finance Israel?" to the question "why not support jobs in the United States?". Behind this change of narrative, Kent discerns an effort to adjust to the new political conditions.
"Why do we finance Israel?"
American public opinion no longer views Israel with the same unanimity that characterized previous decades. The younger generations appear more critical toward Israeli military operations and more skeptical toward the idea that American resources should be used to support conflicts in the Middle East. At the same time, dissatisfaction with the total cost of American involvement in the region is also increasing. The war with Iran, according to critics of American policy, cost tens of billions of dollars to American taxpayers without offering any clear strategic benefit to the United States. On the contrary, many consider that the main beneficiaries were Israel and its regional goals. This argument gains particular weight in a period during which the United States face increasing public debt, infrastructure problems and social pressures domestically. Why, many Americans wonder, continue to spend huge amounts abroad when there are so many unfulfilled needs domestically? Kent argues that the real issue is not whether Israel constitutes an ally of the United States.
Different interests
The issue is whether American policy has ceased to separate the national interests of the two countries. The United States and Israel cooperate closely, but they do not always have the same interests. Israel, like every sovereign state, primarily promotes its own security and its own strategic goals. The same should be done by the United States. According to Kent, the biggest problem of today's American policy is that it has adopted a logic according to which every Israeli priority is automatically treated as an American priority. This, he argues, leads Washington into costly conflicts, diplomatic confrontations and strategic commitments that often do not directly serve the interests of American citizens. This discussion does not concern only Israel. It concerns the way in which the United States perceive their role in the world.
Harsh criticism of the American elite
Will they continue to operate as the main funder and security guarantor of allies across the planet or will they adopt a more limited approach that will give priority to domestic needs? The article of Joe Kent reflects exactly this changing perception. It does not constitute merely a criticism toward Israel. It constitutes mainly a criticism toward the American political elite itself, which for decades took for granted the continuous military, economic and diplomatic support toward Tel Aviv. Whether this trend will lead to a substantial policy change remains to be seen. What is certain is that the public discussion in the United States has changed. And as the questioning of the cost and consequences of this relationship increases, the more difficult it will become for Washington to present the support toward Israel as something that does not admit any criticism or re-examination.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών