Following retaliatory strikes on Iran, Israel has entered a new phase of escalation, marking a direct confrontation with Teheran. The intensifying situation not only risks further destabilizing the region, but also forces the U.S. to become increasingly involved—more than it should be. For instance, in the same month French President Emmanuel Macron called to halt offensive weapons deliveries to Israel, the Biden administration announced the deployment of 100 U.S. troops to operate the THAAD (Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense) system. While Macron’s proposal may carry more symbolic weight, given that France is only a small contributor to Israel’s arms arsenal, it provides an opportunity to rethink America’s traditional approach of unconditional military support for Israel. By adopting a more restrained U.S. foreign policy—especially through a reevaluation of military support—the U.S. has the opportunity to better align its alliances with its strategic interests and growing concern at home and abroad over Israel’s conduct in Gaza, Lebanon, and beyond.
Undoubtedly, Israel’s ability to conduct sustained military operations heavily depends on the support of the Biden administration. U.S. weapons deliveries to Israel are essential not only to Israel’s defense strategy but also to its military campaign against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran directly. The current situation indicates that the U.S. is increasingly entangled, as demonstrated by the recent deployment of additional U.S. troops. Consequently, Washington‘s 'blank check' approach effectively provides a green light for Israel to act without fully considering the implications of its military operations, particularly for its own security and the safety of American troops already stationed in the region.
History shows that unconditional military support has drawn the U.S. deeper into regional conflicts that do not directly serve American interests; on the contrary—it has undermined them. U.S. unconditional military support has emboldened Israeli leadership to pursue aggressive military actions against Iran and its proxy groups in the region.This fosters the belief among the Israeli leadership that the U.S. will come to their rescue regardless of the situation—even if it jeopardizes U.S. interests.
For instance, Israel’s critical military missions — such as the assassination of Hezbollah Nasrallah—were conducted without prior notification to the Biden administration which underscores how unconditional support leaves the U.S. outside of crucial decision-making processes, ultimately leading to escalating tensions affecting American interests. By setting specific conditions for military support, the Biden administration has the opportunity to make it clear that supporting an ally should not come at the expense of jeopardizing U.S. interests.
Biden’s unclear warning about potentially cutting off military funding if Israel does not allow more humanitarian trucks into North Gaza reveals ineffective leverage tactics from the administration. With or without the threat, the U.S. is unlikely to withdraw military support from Israel. If the Rafah invasion did not become a red line for Biden’s military shipments, it is unlikely that the situation in Northern Gaza will change U.S. policy. However, unconditional military support for Israel has enormous implications for U.S foreign policy objectives and the stability of the whole region. The challenge lies in giving Israel necessary defensive tools without compromising American interests. After all, stability in the Middle East is intrinsically linked to American interests, especially while the U.S. maintains a large troop presence in the region.
Instead of issuing warnings that lack precise legal consequences, the Biden administration should enforce U.S. laws to ensure better transparency and accountability in military aid packages. Under the CAT (Conventional Arms Transfer) policy, the U.S. administration has an obligation to assess whether arms transfers might contribute to human rights violations. Congress has the power to restrict military assistance to countries under Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act if human rights violations occur. Enforcing existing laws is not only essential for the credibility of domestic and international law, but it could help lead to a negotiated settlement or ceasefire, which the Biden administration has been fruitlessly pursuing.
So, what if the U.S., Israel’s biggest arms supplier, provides Israel with the necessary tools to defend itself while withholding offensive weapons? This would provide the U.S. with the opportunity to use its leverage to end the war by encouraging the diplomatic path instead of encouraging further escalation through military operations. Encouraging Israel to pursue the diplomatic route aligns with America’s interest in reducing regional instability and the risks of another costly, protracted, and expanded war. To avoid direct war with Iran and ensure safety of U.S. troops in the region, the U.S. must prioritize diplomacy, beginning with setting clear conditions on military assistance for Israel.
