The forest beyond the thorns: The strategic depth of US-Israel relations - analysis

America’s unwavering support for Israel during the recent crisis with Hezbollah and Iran and the ongoing arms supply since October 7 demonstrates that when assessing the US-Israel relationship, it’s crucial to maintain a broad perspective rather than focusing on minor irritants.

In other words, don’t lose the forest for the thorns and the weeds.

What’s the forest? The strong, mutually beneficial strategic relationship between the two countries.

The huge concentration of US military might in Israel’s neighborhood to deter Iran or Hezbollah from acting on threats to wreak vengeance on Israel for the twin assassinations of Fuad Shukr and Ismail Haniyeh three weeks ago is one articulation of the strength of that relationship.

This force includes two US aircraft carrier task forces, one  in the Gulf of Oman and the other in the Persian Gulf; guided-missile destroyer warships from the Persian Gulf to the Eastern Mediterranean; a cruise missile submarine; F35C stealth fighters positioned in the region; an amphibious task force in Cyprus.  That is quite a lot of firepower, all intended to send a message to Iran and Hezbollah: we have Israel’s back.

And this is a message sent despite high-profile disputes between Jerusalem and Washington over the last few months about the prosecution of the war in Gaza. 

Another articulation of the strength of the relationship is the massive airlift of arms and munitions that the US has provided Israel since October 7, even with the slow walking of some of the shipments earlier this summer. 

In a communiqué intended to highlight the arms airlift -- a sharp contrast to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s criticism in June of the flow of arms -- the Defense Ministry Monday said that Israel has received the “500th aircraft in the joint airlift operation” that has brought over 50,000 tons of military equipment delivered through the 500 flights and 107 shipments by sea.

“The equipment procured and transported includes armored vehicles, munitions, ammunition, personal protection gear, and medical equipment, which are crucial for sustaining the IDF's operational capabilities during the ongoing war.”

All of that represents the thick, lush forest that is the overall Israel-US relationship.

So what represents the thorns and weeds? The anti-Israel bashers inside the Democratic Party are the thorns, Senate Bernie Sanders calling for an end to aid to Israel is a thorn.

And the weeds? US President Joe Biden’s wink at the protesters in Chicago, saying that they “have a point”; Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson describing Israel’s war in Gaza as “genocidal.”

One could get so caught up in the prickliness of the thorns and the nuisance of weeds as to miss the bigger picture: and the bigger picture, as evidenced by that 500th aircraft in the joint airlift mission and the concentration of US force in the region, is that this is a strategic relationship that is vastly important and benefits both countries.

The benefits that Israel accrues from the relationship are self-evident, and since October 7 have become even more so.

October 7 was a humbling experience on many levels: the country’s vaunted intelligence was caught blinded, its military flat-footed, its political echelon slow to grasp the enormity of the situation. 

It was also a humbling experience in that it demonstrated to Israelis the degree to which they need America, even as the country, in its 77th year, had turned into a regional power in its own right. Still, it needed US President Joe Biden to say “Don’t”  to Iran and Hezbollah immediately after the October 7 attack and to send US aircraft carriers to the region to back up his words.

And Israel needs America today to deter Iran and its proxies from attacking -- perhaps simultaneously. In addition, it also still needs the US for basic armaments—bullets and tank shells and bombs—not only for large strategic weapons platforms like the F35 fighter.

As a result of this, a perception has emerged in the US that Israel depends on America, while America does not require Israel’s support. This viewpoint underpins calls to divest from Israel and discontinue aid and support.

But this viewpoint remain on the edges, and has not seeped into the mainstream of either AMerican political party. The reasons are not only because of sentiment and common values, but because of geopolitical interests. 

Common values and positive sentiment are great, but they only go so far. Interests are what matter, and the US—evidenced by its strong support for Israel over the last 10 months—needs a strong Israel in the region. This is important for America’s strategic interests.

Israel’s value in the eyes of the US surged during the height of the Cold War when Israel was seen as a bulwark in the region against the Soviet Union.

When the Cold War ended, some were concern that Israel would be less necessary to US national security interests. But that concern did not pan out.

As the sun set on the Soviet threat, it roose on the Iranian one. Iran’s desire to become a nuclear power, and its hegemonic designs on the Middle East—designs which it has put into practice—are first and foremost a threat to Israel, but also very much a threat to the US.

Even as the US is weaning itself off Mideast oil, the region remains important. The US, for its own national security, cannot afford the Middle East to be overrun by a fundamentalist Iran and its Russian and Chinese allies.

Therefore, by helping defend Israel, something that keeps Iran from taking over the Mideast, the US is serving its own interests. This explains the substantial US military build-up in the region, despite occasional disagreements with the Biden administration. It also explains why this strategic commitment is likely to continue regardless of who wins the election in November. 

Kamala Harris's stance

In her speech to the Democratic National Convention last Thursday, Vice President and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris took great pains to be “balanced” on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, stressing the US’s commitment to Israel’s security along with its interest in a fair and equitable solution to the Palestinian issue.

Some Israel supporters could get caught up in this, fret about the language and its implications, concerned that her words may be a harbinger of a change in the relationship. But that, again, is getting caught up in the weeds.

“I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself,” Harris said. The US is demonstrating this commitment through its current concentration of forces in the region and the ongoing airlift of arms to Israel. This doesn’t mean that there are no strings attached, and that this dependency doesn’t limit Israel’s freedom of action to some extent. It does.

Still, that backing for Israel is vital, as the country has experienced in real time over the last 10 months. This backing will continue in the future as well, not only out of a concern for Israel, but also out of a concern for what would happen to US interests if there were no Israel, and Iran, Russia, and China would have free rein in the region.

Or, as Biden has put it more than once: If there were no Israel, America would have to invent it.