The Falling of the Middle East Quagmire: The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

Department of International Relations and Strategic Affairs /April20, 2024

American political analyst  John Mearsheimer, in a compelling article for the Foreign Policy magazine, places the blame squarely on the United States for the current turmoil engulfing the Middle East. He argues that Iran’s support for Palestinian resistance, whether in Gaza or the West Bank, is not just political posturing but a justified stance.

Below is the text of the article that has been translated into Arabic:

When Iran chose to retaliate against Israeli aggression on its consulate in Damascus with drone strikes and missile attacks, it unveiled the Biden administration’s ineptitude in managing Middle Eastern affairs.

Biden’s response to Hamas’s October 7 attack had three core objectives:

Firstly, an unwavering display of support for Israel, evident through verbal affirmations, regular consultations with Israeli leaders, defending Israel against genocide allegations, leveraging vetoes against UN ceasefire resolutions, and a consistent supply of advanced weaponry.

Secondly, Washington aimed to temper Tel Aviv’s responses—not out of concern for Palestinian civilian casualties, but to safeguard the U.S.’s own image and reputation in the region.

This dual-faced policy inevitably failed, revealing its inherent contradictions. It’s hardly surprising that such calls went unheeded by a government set on war.

Iran and the American Perspective on Arms

Americans, accustomed to viewing Iran as the “devil incarnate,” perceive Iran’s arms shipments to the West Bank as fueling an already volatile situation.

To set the record straight: Iran operates under a theocratic regime. However

Are its efforts to supply arms to the West Bank—Gaza included—so condemnable?

Was its retaliation to Israel’s recent consulate bombing truly unexpected?

According to the Geneva Conventions, populations living under “military occupation” have the right to resist. Given Israel’s control over the West Bank and Jerusalem since 1967, its colonization with over 700,000 illegal settlers, and the thousands of Palestinian lives lost, this is undoubtedly a “military occupation.” Resistance here falls under the laws of war, and aiding besieged populations is not inherently wrong.

Likewise, Iran’s retaliation after Israel’s consulate attack and assassination of two Iranian generals isn’t necessarily “aggressive.” Especially when Tehran has repeatedly stated its reluctance to escalate the conflict. As U.S. and Israeli officials often claim when flexing their might, Iran is merely trying to “reestablish deterrence.”

Let’s not overlook the fact that the U.S. has been arming the Middle East for decades. Billions in advanced military hardware flow to Israel annually, accompanied by assurances of unwavering support.

This support remained steadfast even when Israel targeted Gaza’s civilians, causing starvation, or when Israel announced its largest land seizure in the West Bank since 1993 during Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s recent visit.

Instead of expressing dismay over Israel’s attack on Iran’s consulate, Washington’s top brass rushed to Jerusalem to display solidarity. Biden himself made it clear: his commitment to Israel remains unshakeable.

Countries wielding unchecked power often misuse it. Israel is no exception. Bolstered by decades of unconditional U.S. support, it acts with increasing brutality towards Palestinians.

If Iran’s arms smuggling to the West Bank unsettles you, consider the scenario in reverse. Imagine Egypt, Jordan, and Syria triumphing in the 1967 war, displacing millions of Israelis.

The Palestinian Issue in the American Zionist Imagination

Imagine Arab victors later granting Palestinians the right of return and establishing their state on part or all of historic Palestine. Suppose a million or so Israeli Jews found themselves as refugees, confined to a narrow enclave akin to Gaza. Imagine former Irgun fighters and other Jewish extremists launching a movement, seizing control of this enclave, and rejecting the new Palestinian state.

Suppose they began receiving support from sympathetic global backers, smuggling weapons into the enclave, and launching attacks on nearby Palestinian towns and settlements. What if the Palestinian state responded with sieges and bombardments, resulting in thousands of civilian deaths?

Under these circumstances, whom do you think the U.S. government would support?

The answers are clear, revealing the glaringly one-sided approach the U.S. takes in this conflict.

Those of us critiquing some of Israel’s actions, only to have our reputations tarnished as anti-Semites or Jewish haters, were advocating for policies that could benefit both the U.S. and Israel.

Had our advice been heeded, Israel would likely be safer today. Tens of thousands of Palestinians would still be alive in their divided land, and Iran would be further from possessing a nuclear bomb. The Middle East would undoubtedly be a more peaceful region.

Finally, there would be no reason for Iran to smuggle arms into the West Bank if these territories were part of a viable Palestinian state. Nor would there be any reason for Iranian leaders to consider whether their country would be safer with a nuclear deterrent.

In conclusion,

Mearsheimer asserts, “Until a more fundamental shift occurs in U.S. policy towards the Middle East, these hopeful possibilities will remain out of reach, and the mistakes that brought us here are likely to be repeated.”