WANA (May 09) – The relationship between the United States and the Israeli regime is a rare and unique case in the history of international relations. Various indicators confirm this special bond:

 

1. Israel has received more financial aid from the U.S. than any other country.

 

2. Every year, large quantities of advanced American weaponry are delivered to Israel — equipment that even some NATO members do not have access to.

 

3. The repeated use of the U.S. veto in the United Nations Security Council in favor of Israel is another sign of this distinctive relationship, despite Israel having one of the worst records of violating international law and committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

 

This relationship goes beyond simple American support for Israel. The U.S. has repeatedly intervened directly on behalf of the regime. For example, during the 1973 war, the U.S. created an airlift that saved Israel from defeat. Similarly, during the Second Intifada, American forces and fleets were swiftly deployed to the region.

 

Despite such support, the relationship has not always resembled one of master and subordinate. At times, it appears that Israel has influence over U.S. foreign policy, despite its small size and limited population.

 

Two main perspectives seek to explain this relationship:

 

The first view sees Israel not as a conventional nation-state, but as part of a political project designed to fulfill a specific role in the global order — particularly to prevent the emergence of a powerful Arab or Islamic state in West Asia after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Initially, Britain played this role, and after World War II, the U.S. took over. According to this view, Israel is dependent on the dominant global power.

 

The second view emphasizes that Israel has gained influence through the international Zionist lobby, particularly when this lobby has been able to influence the decision-making processes of global powers. This influence was first exerted in Britain and later in the U.S., reaching a peak during the 1942 Baltimore Conference.

 

According to this perspective, Israel can exert influence far beyond its actual capabilities — provided that the Zionist lobby can control the decision-making centers of global powers. Scholars such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have also highlighted this in their work, showing that the Zionist lobby has at times led to U.S. interests being sacrificed for Israel’s benefit.

 

Israeli Lobby vs. Trump’s Independent Diplomacy

WANA (Apr 18) – The undeniable anger of Netanyahu and his harsh opposition to the negotiations raise concerns in Iran that the Israeli lobby might attempt to disrupt the talks. Therefore, the United States must prove its independence from the illegitimate demands and actions of the Israeli regime and Netanyahu, in its dealings with the […]

Read More...

However, the history of U.S.-Israel relations also reveals certain realities:

 

First, under specific circumstances, the U.S. has been able to force Israel to back down on key decisions. For example, in 1956, President Eisenhower compelled Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula. This case is often cited to support the view that Israel serves as a tool for the dominant global power.

 

Still, that U.S. decision was more driven by concerns over the rising tide of Arab nationalism and the need to contain it to protect American interests — rather than a sheer assertion of power over Israel.

 

Second, since the 1967 war, all U.S. administrations have supported Israel. Some interpret this as a sign of the Zionist lobby’s strong influence. In reality, though, this support stems from American policymakers’ perception of Israel’s strategic value in the region — including reducing Soviet influence after the occupation of Arab territories.

 

With the decline of Arab nationalism, a vacuum emerged that enabled Israel to expand its influence. U.S. policy in the region has largely reflected how various actors impact American interests. The U.S. has considered Israel’s position in the Arab world as a given and has used it to extract further concessions from Arab states. As the regional balance shifted and Iran emerged as a central player in the Axis of Resistance — especially after AOperation Al-Aqsa Flood — the dynamics of confrontation changed.

 

The continued high cost of supporting Israel may have been one of the reasons Trump decided to enter indirect negotiations with Iran under Tehran’s conditions — talks limited to the nuclear issue, excluding matters like missiles or regional influence.

 

The outcome of these negotiations remains uncertain, but they represent a major test for a president who came to office with the slogan “America First.” If his goal is to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons through diplomacy, that aim could align with both American and Iranian interests. However, this path does not necessarily align with Netanyahu’s agenda, which calls for completely stripping Iran of its nuclear capabilities, missile program, and regional influence.

 

Ultimately, only time will tell whose interests Trump will prioritize — America’s or Israel’s. And in the end, the answer to the key question will become clear: in this relationship, who is the puppet, and who is the puppeteer?