The current dilemma in the United States can be attributed to two significant miscalculations: the decision to extend NATO up to the borders of Russia and the willingness to concede to Israeli demands, including its expansion into Palestinian territories. Both of these realizations are gaining momentum in the minds of American policymakers, especially in the wake of the Hamas attacks on Israel that occurred on October 7th.
The origins of this dual-pronged policy concerning Europe and the Middle East, pertaining to NATO and Israel, can be traced back to America's experiences during the two World Wars of the 20th century.
Europe has served as a perennial battleground for centuries, where the 19th century marked a pivotal turning point with the onset of the Industrial Revolution. This transformation not only permanently altered ways of life, but also reshaped the balance of power and the methods by which future wars would be waged in the ensuing century. The subsequent two World Wars underscored this point, emphasizing the necessity for a single great power to maintain equilibrium in a world now armed with weapons of mass destruction.
The assumption of the responsibility to rectify global affairs by the United States was not inherently ill-intentioned, despite how it might appear from a particular perspective.
If not the State of Israel itself, the Netanyahu-led, far-right Zionist regime seems to be nothing short of a liability for the United States.
In the Far East, Japan, as the sole recipient of the US nuclear bomb, ironically reaped significant benefits in hindsight. The US occupation introduced land reforms in Japan, which liberated the historically oppressed peasantry and laid the foundation for a prosperous middle class, contributing to Japan's industrial success and its alliance with the West. Simultaneously, the US supported China's economic and military growth, preventing it from becoming a target of Japanese aggression, as it had been during the Second World War. The US provided technological support to China, helped develop the country's human resources, and expanded its market for products. Similarly, the United States aided Germany in rebuilding its economy and recovering from the trauma it endured after its defeat in the war in 1945.
It is beyond doubt that Americans have made significant contributions to global development, both technologically and intellectually. However, despite these efforts, anti-American sentiment has grown in the post-Cold War era, especially since 1991, when the arch-rival USSR disintegrated. This was particularly evident in the Muslim world, following American military interventions in the Middle East, specifically in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan.
The Middle East holds importance for the United States for two well-established reasons: the vast oil resources in the Gulf countries and the presence of Israel as an American stronghold in the region to counter Russian influence. However, the October 7th attacks by Hamas on Israel exposed many challenges in this relationship. Speaking on this issue at the Centre of Independent Studies (CIS), Professor John Mearsheimer bemoaned the fact that while American presidents from the time of Jimmy Carter understood the necessity of a two-state solution in the Middle East, they failed to exert significant pressure on Israel to move in that direction – Israel continued its expansion and occupation of Palestinian lands and refused to recognize the Palestinian state.
As a result, the US now finds itself in an undesirable and precarious situation, forced to support Israel in a conflict that diverts its attention away from the genuine threat in East Asia, where China poses a significant challenge – which they once helped grow big. This problem has been further exacerbated by the initial misstep made by the Americans in 2008, pushing for NATO expansion close to Russia's borders, specifically in Ukraine. At the beginning of his address, the professor highlights the period between 1989 and 2017 as a significant moment in history, marking a unipolar world with the US in the position of Uncle Sam. During this time, he argues that the US, as the sole superpower, provided European and Eastern nations with a security umbrella that allowed them to flourish.
The unfavorable analysis of the situation from Israel’s point of view by these two knowledgeable Americans reinforces the idea that the US may have grown weary of this persistent issue in the Middle East and is unwilling to let Israel use its influence to involve the US at the expense of more critical situations in other regions of the world.
This supports the thesis that, as a proponent of a free world and a free-market economy, the US has sought to maintain a world order characterized by the free flow of goods and capital.
However, this policy has had its hidden drawbacks. Drawing on the Thatcherite economic model – establishing factories and manufacturing in the North of the UK while controlling business and commerce from the prosperous South. Similarly, the West outsourced manufacturing to developing nations. This resulted in an inability to produce military hardware on a large scale, particularly battle tanks and artillery, which the Russians have now surpassed the collective NATO supplies – Ukraine has fired 150 thousand 155 mm shells, against an over one million 152/155mm rounds fired at them by Russia. This has made the US-led West facing this challenge on the battlefield, which has expanded from Eastern Europe to the Middle East, with a looming concern of further spillover into the Far East – i.e., Taiwan and South Korea.
In this context, if not the State of Israel itself, the Netanyahu-led, far-right Zionist regime seems to be nothing short of a liability for the United States.
This notion is corroborated by the former US Marine and defense analyst, Scott Ritter, in his recent interview. Scott unequivocally criticizes Israeli expansionist policies and the impact of their actions on Gaza, which ultimately led to the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7th. He also highlights the Israeli forces' incapability to launch any meaningful ground attack on Gaza or engage in a guerrilla war against Hamas – Israel lacks the essential military training and capability. Scott believes that after Israel has exhausted itself in this war, it would create an opportunity for the creation of a Palestinian state and the resolution of this matter once and for all.
The unfavorable analysis of the situation from Israel’s point of view by these two knowledgeable Americans reinforces the idea that the US may have grown weary of this persistent issue in the Middle East and is unwilling to let Israel use its influence to involve the US at the expense of more critical situations in other regions of the world. While the Russians, and now North Korean Leader Kim Jong-Un, are wooing Muslim nations in the wake of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Americans must be observing these developments with dismay – the adamant Israeli attitude towards a two-nation solution has hampered American efforts in the Muslim world, especially in recent dealings with Saudi Arabia to recognize Israel in order to perpetuate peace in the region.
The United States has never had an issue with Islam as a religion, as is commonly perceived. If that were the case, they would not maintain positive relations with Saudi Arabia or, for that matter, with Pakistan. However, there have been serious miscalculations by the Americans during their tenure as the sole superpower. In some cases, and places, American diplomats even exhibited a tone of arrogance and made blunt statements, akin to Ambassador Kux's conduct in Lahore after the Cold War.
Muslim countries, particularly Pakistan, will need to dispel certain stereotypes from their discourse and adopt a more informed approach when determining their relationship with the US and the west – and probably a similar recourse to a more cautious vocabulary would help the US and their allies too.
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”