Washington’s Wavering Support for Israel

Sharp shifts in American policy cast doubt over whether the US will have Israel's back if it needs to preemptively strike Iran

The USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group transits in formation (US Navy)

With Iran and its proxies threatening to launch a massive attack against Israel, US Navy forces are steaming toward the Middle East. As on April 14, when US warships helped intercept dozens of Iranian missiles fired at Israel, the Americans are poised to help defend our skies. The question nevertheless remains whether the United States will stand squarely behind Israel, even if it decides to strike preemptively. In view of the fundamental changes in the Biden Administration’s policy toward the Middle East crisis over the past ten months, can Israel rely on a firm and consistent American stand? With our security so acutely endangered, can Israel depend on a stalwart United States?

The indications are by no means encouraging. US policy today is almost unrecognizable from what it was on October 7. In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas attack, President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken offered Israel immediate and unlimited support to fulfill its twin goals of rescuing the hostages and destroying Hamas. Although both stressed the need for the IDF to act in accordance with international law and minimize civilian casualties, neither Biden nor Blinken suggested that US backing for Israel would be conditioned on the humanitarian situation in Gaza or the number of Palestinians killed. Biden in fact dismissed Hamas’s casualty figures as exaggerated and stressed the difficulties Israel faced in fighting an enemy hiding behind its own civilians.

Two months later, much of the initial American position had changed. Though the administration continued to veto anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council, it began claiming that “too many Palestinians had been killed,” that Israel was bombing indiscriminately in Gaza, and that its reaction to the Hamas attacks was “over the top.”

President Biden went from impugning Hamas statistics to citing them repeatedly. Soon, the supply of American munitions to the IDF, formerly expedited, was delayed. Secretary Blinken declared that the goal of the war was not to destroy Hamas but to ensure that “October 7 can never happen again.”

The evolution in the administration’s position was certainly influenced by the media, which went from initially focusing on Israeli suffering to 24/7 coverage of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza. The war suddenly became a contentious issue in the presidential elections. But the White House had also concluded that Israel’s objective of destroying Hamas was unrealistic. Increasingly vilified by progressives for enabling the alleged massacre of Palestinians, the president was paying what many in his administration believed was a prohibitive political price for an unwinnable war. Reports began circulating that, in the absence of an Israeli “day after” plan, the US would seek a post-war administration for Gaza that included technocratic elements of Hamas.

Recent weeks have seen yet another major shift in American policy. No longer seeking the destruction of Hamas or even guaranteeing that it will never be able to launch another October 7, the White House wants to secure the release of the hostages and put an end to the war. These goals are to be achieved at almost any price, including Hamas’s survival and Israel’s forfeiture of control over the Philadelphi route between Egypt and Gaza. As such, the administration viewed the assassination of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh as a setback. Asked by a reporter whether Haniyeh’s death harmed efforts to achieve a hostage deal, US President Biden curtly replied, “It certainly didn’t help.”

Biden’s position on the hostage and ceasefire package is acceptable to a growing number of Israelis. Nevertheless, it too represents a departure from previous American policy. Moreover, it still stands at odds with the Israeli government’s longstanding determination to prevent Hamas from once again smuggling arms from Egypt into Gaza and to eliminate the terrorists as a political and military force.

In the north, too, American policy has changed. Back in October, Biden used his famous one-word warning “Don’t” to Hezbollah and Iran. Should either try to take advantage of the war in the south, the president suggested, they would elicit powerful American opposition. Both subsequently ignored that warning – Hezbollah by launching 7,000 rockets and drones at the Golan and Upper Galilee and Iran by firing 350 projectiles at Israel last April 14. The aircraft carriers originally dispatched to the area to emphasize Biden’s “Don’t” were withdrawn.

Today, that same “Don’t” seems less directed at Iran than at Israel. Though some 100,000 Israelis have been displaced by Hezbollah rocket fire and thousands more subjected to almost daily barrages, Biden administration officials keep urging Israel to show restraint. Instead of welcoming the elimination of Haniyeh and senior Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr, mass murderers both, the White House expressed fear that their deaths would ignite a regional war into which the United States could be dragged. “Back-to-back assassinations,” headlined the New York Times, “scramble Biden’s hopes for peace.”

Such fluctuations in US policy are hardly new. Between 2010 and 2015, America’s position went from “a bad nuclear deal with Iran is worse than no deal” to “any deal, no matter how bad, is better than no deal.” Still, never in such a short period and under such pressing circumstances has American policy changed so fundamentally and radically. And never has an Israeli government been less equipped to adapt to those changes successfully.

Now, with war looming, Israel must determine to what degree America will have our back. We must know the extent to which the United States will help defend us irrespective of whether we retaliate against Iranian aggression or strike Iran preemptively. Needed now is the clear and consistent US policy often lacking in the last ten months. For all its dangers, the present crisis offers a unique opportunity to deter Iran and strengthen the regional alliance against it. America, too, can emerge with its reputation as a reliable ally and formidable superpower restored. By staying the course and acting in effective concert against Iran, the US and Israel can change the course of Middle East history.

---

This piece was originally published in The Times of Israel