Click below to subscribe to America Explained and support the newsletter - plus gain access to all posts, including our 2024 election coverage.
The United States is currently vital to the survival of two allies - Ukraine and Israel. But that doesn’t translate into the level of influence over what those allies do that you might think.
One of the enduring myths of American foreign policy is that smaller countries who are reliant on American aid and support are simply its puppets. This accusation has been lobbed at governments like South Vietnam, South Korea, Afghanistan and now Israel and Ukraine. But the actual relationship between support and influence is much more complex. Paradoxically, receiving full-throated American support can actually make allied governments more likely to act independently - and ultimately in ways which are harmful to American interests.
There are a couple of reasons for this, but the most important is that the fate of presidents gets tied up with the fortunes of allies. If the United States defines the survival or success of a particular foreign government as a key national interest, then presidents know they will suffer a calamitous political blow if that ally falters. The more commitment that the United States makes to an ally - in terms of military aid, financial resources, or military manpower - the harder that ally becomes to walk away from. Knowing that the United States will never abandon it, the ally feels freer than ever to disregard any advice or demands that Washington sends its way. Like banks in a financial crisis, the ally has become “too big to fail”.
To extend the metaphor, the situation then creates a moral hazard. The ally knows that it can engage in risky behavior - for instance by prolonging or widening a conflict - because it will not bear the costs of that risk alone. If things go south, the United States will still be ready to help the ally with whatever new problems arise. The alternative would be abandonment, a grievous blow to the interests of the United States, and political ignominy for the president who let it all happen.
This dynamic has played out again and again in America’s wars in the past 75 years, from South Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan. These governments refused to undertaken anti-corruption reforms, to make a meaningful attempt to deliver services and security to their people, or to form inclusive political systems - all while merrily walking to the bank with American aid checks and benefiting from the protection of American soldiers. A succession of American presidents felt unable to apply sticks as well as carrots to try to modify their behavior, and few seriously contemplated the threat of outright abandonment - the only thing that might have led to actual reforms.
This history, however, is not the main subject of this post. The main subject of this post is what we can learn from these dynamics about the conflicts in Israel and Ukraine.
Israel
The Biden administration calls its approach to Israel “hugging them close”. The idea is that a stance of complete public support will give Biden the political capital necessary to ask for changes to Israeli behavior behind the scenes. As the world’s attention has moved on from the horrific Hamas attacks of October 7th and fighting has begun in earnest in Gaza, American influence has become more important. U.S. officials have been pressing Netanyahu to come up with realistic plans for a post-Hamas Gaza, to take steps to minimize the awful humanitarian situation and the deaths of civilians, and even to form a more moderate coalition government which excludes many of the political arsonists who have done so much to inflame Israeli-Palestinian tensions in recent years.
On the face of it, Washington would seem to be in a powerful position to make demands of its ally. I think many people are yet to understand the way that the balance of power in the Middle East has shifted over the past two decades. American aircraft carriers are not stationed off the coast of Israel just as some sort of vague flex. They are there because in the event of Hezbollah and Iran’s full entrance into the conflict, they may be necessary to prevent the wholesale destruction of Israeli cities. In particular, the military capabilities of Hezbollah - most notably its collection of some 150,000 rockets and missiles - are described by Israeli military officials as posing a near-existential threat to the country, nearly on par with nuclear weapons.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to America Explained to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.