The Biden administration appears to be bringing the United States into a closer military alliance with Israel, even though the two countries have yet to form a security alliance.
This development continues a trend that became particularly prominent during the administration of Donald Trump, in the last days of which the Department of Defense placed Israel in the area of U.S. responsibility. Central Command. a unified command covering the Middle East. The Pentagon’s announcement of the change described Israel as “a key ally of the United States.”
Sources in the Biden administration told William Arkin of Newsweek that the joint command arrangement is a “deep change” for the US military in terms of relations with Israel since the country’s founding. The stated hope was that this would eventually lead to a NATO-like alliance in the Middle East that would be directed against Iran, Russia and China.
Entering into a military alliance with any foreign country is a big step with huge risks, especially the risk of being drawn into someone else’s war. This step should not be taken without carefully considering that the alliance is necessary to fulfill an important security requirement and that the benefits will outweigh the costs and risks.
There is no public indication that drifting into a closer military alliance with Israel is contemplated. This situation is different from, for example, the recent admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO. Although the adoption of the two northern European countries has had widespread support against the backdrop of Russia’s aggressive war in Ukraine, there has been at least some debate and consideration of the benefits and risks of this expansion of the Atlantic alliance, including in Congress. . One does not view the same debate about commitment to Israel as futile.
Circumstances that would justify a commitment to any security alliance – whether formal or real – include a real and significant military threat from a hostile power. It must be a threat that prospective members of the alliance cannot meet alone. And the threat must be that, if it changes and is not met, the political consequences could seriously harm US interests.
Extending security commitments to a would-be ally should not constitute aid, to borrow the framework that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky used in his recent appeal to Congress for continued aid. This agreement should benefit the United States and not just benefit other people in the arrangement. The commitment must be bilateral, especially with other allies willing and able to help the United States in ways that, without that commitment, they may not be able to do.
Finally, although external conditions may bring into alliance countries with very different local politics and communities, the conditions for justifying an alliance may exist when basic values are shared. Common principles specify the impact on U.S. interests. if a partner surrenders to a foreign threat, and the same values make the partner willing to help the United States.
NATO provides useful examples and comparisons. The expansion of the alliance in the 1990s and its further use in extraterritorial operations are highly questionable, as is whether NATO would have continued to exist at all after the Cold War . But when NATO was formed in 1949, the conditions justifying such an alliance seemed to exist. These included a major military threat in the form of the Red Army occupying Eastern Europe, the inability of European democracies—still recovering from the devastation of World War II—to confront and that threat alone, and the obvious punishment of U.S. interests. the Soviet takeover of Western Europe would mean. The dual commitment was highlighted when the only application of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty – where an attack by one member will be considered an attack on all – was in response to an attack. of the United States. States in September 2001.
Underlying all of this were the shared foundations of liberal democracy. Later deviations shared by Poland and especially Hungary, which have become painful points for the European Union and not only NATO, are the exceptions that emphasize this rule.
The situation affecting Israel today is far different from any of these. There is no violent threat in the Middle East comparable to the Red Army in Europe in the 1940s. No hostile power can achieve hegemony in that region. Israel itself is the preeminent military power in the region, due to its conventional superior technological power and generally considered to have the only nuclear weapons in the region. Israel does not need a military alliance with the United States to protect itself against foreign threats.
There is no conceivable scenario that would see a foreign power cross the Jordan River or Mount Hermon to attack Israel. Israel’s main security problem – and the biggest threat to the resources and attention of the Israel Defense Forces – is self-inflicted: the occupation of Palestinian territory and the oppression of the indigenous people who live there. . The work and related pressure are not in the U.S. interest. Instead, they are against US interests, by perpetuating conflict and a source of instability and by associating the United States with the often fatal denial of human rights—refusal to exacerbate the problems of the US security by fomenting terrorism and anti-Americanism in the region.
Common principles do not unite the United States and Israel in the way that liberal democratic values united America and Western Europe. Israel’s legal system and nationalism is based on the favored treatment of one ethnic/religious group and its systematic superiority over other groups. Israel uses democratic processes within the popular group, but no country denies political rights to millions of citizens of the country it controls, and that Israel treats some projects as an important part of its territory , is a democracy. The incoming Israeli government – the most extreme – will widen the value gap even further, as Israel sinks further into racism and segregation.
The lack of importance to the United States of Israel as a military ally was highlighted during Operation Desert Storm, the campaign to dislodge Iraq from Kuwait in 1991. The United States pressured Israel to stay out of the war against Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, regardless. that government’s efforts to engage Israel in a missile war on Israeli territory. Israel’s participation would have undermined the US administration’s efforts to assemble an Arab coalition against Iraq.
Some commentators – including the Pentagon in its announcement on the reorganization of the joint command – claim that Israel’s improved relations with several Arab countries (the so-called “Abraham Accords”) make cooperation Military proximity to Israel is safer today than ever. But attracting Arab states like the UAE and Bahrain, which are increasingly deviating from American values and parties to domestic rivalries that do not align with U.S. interests, only increases the chances of the United States becoming involved in personal conflicts. another. Moreover, Israel’s improvement of relations with a few sovereign states—which was only possible with side payments by the Trump administration—did not remove the perception that the unresolved Palestinian issue is keeping the across the Arab world and much of the Muslim world beyond, and suggests that the unresolved issue of Palestine remains. Israel has bad value as an alliance. This tone was shown by many expressions of the World Cup in Qatar of support for the Palestinians.
Some commentators have argued for years that the United States gains an advantage from Israel’s capabilities in security matters such as counter-terrorism and military technology development. But the relevant question is how much more Israel would do in these areas, with certain benefits to the United States, than it would without the strong financial and political support it receives or a kind of military alliance. which the United States is attracted to. Israel has its strong reasons, even if it does not have such American favors, to sell its military technology and cooperate against terrorism.
When Israel’s narrow agendas involved in its military operations collide with US interests, it is US interests that suffer—despite the financial and diplomatic benefits the US has given Israel. This has happened since the murder of one U.S. citizen. leading to a larger attack on a U.S. ship. and its employees during the war.
The dangers of a close military relationship with Israel are based on Israel’s tendency to engage in lethal methods. Israel is the country in the Middle East that has thrown its army around, with more attacks on the territories of other nations, than any other country in the region. Israel has repeatedly started wars, including a major one in 1967, which began with Israel’s invasion of Egypt. Later came Israel’s repeated invasion of Lebanon, many devastating military attacks on the Palestinian-occupied Gaza Strip, an attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility (an attack that revived and accelerated the covert program of nuclear weapons in Iraq), and a similar attack later in Syria.
Currently, Israel is continuing a sustained air campaign against Syrian targets, which has been going on for years and includes many attacks. So far, the angry exchange of fire between Israel and Syria has been relatively one-sided, but the possibility of an escalation involving Syria or its allies in Iran or Russia is significant.
Today, the chances of Israel provoking a new war involving Iran are many.
Threatening a military attack on Iran has been the brainchild of Israeli leaders, part of a strategy to incite greater hostility toward Iran as a way to serve Israel’s other purposes. When Benjamin Netanyahu led the Israeli government earlier, avoiding an Israeli attack on Iran was one of the motivations of the Barack Obama administration to use strong negotiations to block all paths that could lead to an Iranian nuclear weapon.
With Netanyahu back in power at the head of his powerful alliance, and Iran expanding its nuclear program in response to Donald Trump’s foolish abandonment of a deal that had severely restricted that program, Israel’s threat to fuel war with Iran is like that. great as ever. For Netanyahu, the preferred position would have the United States, rather than Israel, shoulder the burden and costs of such a war. Especially considering Israel’s long record of covert action against Iran, the ability of the Netanyahu government to control events and bring about such a situation is enormous.
In general, a military alliance with Israel brings little or no benefit to the United States but involves great costs and risks, especially the risk of being drawn into a war not because of US interests but because of foreign government projects.
How powerful is NATO?
Currently, NATO has a combined GFP score of 3.8900. Individual roles are detailed here. There are a total of 30 countries included in the NATO Member States Military Ranking (2022) annual security review.
Is NATO the most powerful in the world? NATO, founded in 1949, is the most powerful military alliance in the world. To see also : UK SE TotalEnergies Regulatory Announcement: US: TotalEnergies Announces Commissioning of New Ethane Cracker at Port Arthur.
Is NATO a powerful alliance?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is known worldwide as the strongest and most powerful Alliance in the world; but where does NATO’s power come from?
Who has the strongest NATO military?
Forces. The largest military in NATO, by a large scale, is the United States Army with 485,000 regular personnel, as of 2021. The United States Army is followed by the Turkish Army with 260,200 personnel. To see also : Review of ‘The Terminal List’: Chris Pratt, Amazon Prime Video. Many European NATO members have tens of thousands of active personnel for their armies.
Is Israel a part of NATO?
The fact that despite all the relations, cooperation, close relations and shared values Israel is not a member of the EU and NATO – and it is clear that this is not only because of geographical separation – is also is reflected in the special status that Israel has received in these international countries. This may interest you : Two Years of Matthew Heath’s Captivity in Venezuela – US State Department. conflict.
. Israel has had a special relationship with NATO for more than three decades and was the third country to receive non-NATO status since 1989.
How does NATO compare to Russia?
The combined military capacity of the 30 countries that make up NATO exceeds Russia in terms of aircraft, from 20,723 to 4,173, and in naval strength, with 2,049 naval vessels, to 605. The capacity of combat vehicles of Russia is more competitive, however, with 12,420 bringing their total to 14,682.
Can NATO defend itself against Russia? Fact: NATO’s missile defenses are not directed against Russia and will not undermine Russia’s strategic deterrence capabilities. It is designed to protect European allies against missile threats from outside the Euro-Atlantic area.
What is the equivalent of NATO for Russia?
The Collective Security Treaty Organisation, better known by its initials, CSTO—or by Moscow’s ambition that it should be an equal partner with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) – is now on the brink of collapse, despite so another case of Security Damage Russia has suffered in the post-Soviet space since …
Which country is stronger in NATO?
In 2022, the United States had the largest military presence of all North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, with 1.35 million troops.
How many Army NATO has?
The combined military strength among NATO member states was about 3.3 million personnel in 2022, compared to 3.27 million last year.
How big is NATO?
How strong is NATO military?
The NATO alliance has a strong force of 40,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen ready to mobilize. Its combat forces are held on bases provided by the NATO country to which they are deployed. They can be considered “visitor bases”, as opposed to a NATO-run base only.
