Why America Is Losing Global Credibility by Protecting Israel at All Costs

For most of the post–World War II era, American power was not simply measured by its nuclear arsenal or economic scale. What made Washington unique among great powers was its ability to build and sustain alliances. From NATO in Europe to bilateral security treaties in Asia and informal partnerships in the Middle East, America positioned itself as the indispensable ally — a state that others could trust not only to deter adversaries but also to uphold a rules-based international order.

Yet in recent years, this credibility has begun to unravel. The Ukraine war revealed cracks in NATO unity, Asia’s smaller states increasingly hedge between Washington and Beijing, and the Muslim world views U.S. policy as openly biased. At the heart of this shift lies a paradox few in Washington want to confront: America’s unconditional defense of Israel — once a cornerstone of U.S. Middle East strategy — is now becoming a source of global estrangement.

The United States finds itself accused of double standards, applying international law selectively depending on whether Israel is involved. European partners question Washington’s judgment, Muslim nations denounce its moral blind spots, and the Global South increasingly gravitates toward China and Russia, who present themselves as neutral actors. What was once America’s greatest regional asset — Israel as a forward base, an intelligence partner, and a symbol of democratic resilience — may now be turning into a strategic liability.

The question is no longer whether the U.S. can protect Israel, but whether doing so at all costs risks undermining its global leadership.

Israel: The “Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier”

Israel has never been “just another ally” for the United States. Since its founding in 1948, and especially during the Cold War, Washington came to view Israel not simply as a partner but as a strategic asset woven into the architecture of American power projection in the Middle East. U.S. officials from Henry Kissinger to Ronald Reagan openly described Israel as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” — a permanent, reliable forward operating base that could secure U.S. interests in one of the world’s most volatile regions.

A Strategic Outpost in the Cold War

During the Cold War, Israel played a dual role. Militarily, it acted as the bulwark against Soviet-backed Arab states such as Egypt (before Camp David), Syria, and Iraq. Israel’s victories in the 1967 and 1973 wars demonstrated that American weaponry, training, and intelligence could decisively outmatch Moscow’s client states. This made Israel a live-action showroom for U.S. defense technology, helping Washington both deter the Soviets and market weapons to allies worldwide.

Politically, Israel’s survival reinforced the narrative of U.S. commitment to democracy in a region dominated by monarchies and military dictatorships. It allowed Washington to argue that its support was values-driven, even while backing authoritarian allies elsewhere in the Arab world.

Intelligence and Military Assets

From the 1970s onward, Israel became central to America’s intelligence-gathering operations in the Middle East. Israeli intelligence (Mossad, Aman, Shin Bet) provided critical data on Soviet weapons, Iranian networks, and Arab military capabilities. U.S. analysts often referred to Israel as an “early warning radar” — detecting shifts in the region before they reached American desks.

This role expanded after the Iranian Revolution of 1979, when the U.S. lost its other major regional outpost, Tehran. Israel effectively filled the gap, offering access to regional surveillance, forward logistics, and testing grounds for weapons systems.

The Technological Pillar

In the 21st century, Israel’s role has shifted from primarily military to increasingly technological. Israel’s defense industry is a world leader in cybersecurity, AI-driven surveillance, missile defense (Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow), and drones. These innovations are not stand-alone exports — they are deeply integrated into the U.S. military-industrial complex through joint ventures, research partnerships, and Pentagon procurement. For American strategists, Israel is no longer just a battlefield ally but also a research laboratory feeding the next generation of warfare.

Geographic Centrality

Geography cements Israel’s value. Nestled between the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, and proximity to the Gulf, Israel offers Washington access to three critical maritime chokepoints: the Suez Canal, the Bab el-Mandeb, and the Strait of Hormuz (via Gulf alliances). This positioning makes Israel not only a shield against regional threats like Iran but also a launchpad for power projection into Europe, Africa, and Asia. In simple terms, no other ally provides the U.S. with this combination of location, stability, and military capability in the Middle East.

Domestic Political Lock-In

Finally, Israel is more than geopolitics — it is deeply embedded in U.S. domestic politics. The pro-Israel lobby (notably AIPAC) exerts extraordinary influence in Congress, ensuring bipartisan consensus around military aid and diplomatic protection. Simultaneously, evangelical Christian voters see Israel’s survival as a religious imperative, pushing Republican politicians in particular toward unconditional support. For Democrats, concerns about antisemitism and historical guilt after the Holocaust reinforce the political taboo of questioning the alliance.

The result is that support for Israel is institutionalized within the American political system. Unlike NATO, where burden-sharing debates surface regularly, or Asian alliances, where public opinion fluctuates, the U.S.–Israel relationship is shielded from partisan swings.

The Mounting Costs of Unconditional Support

For decades, Washington could justify its support for Israel as both a strategic necessity and a moral stance. But the balance sheet has changed. What once bolstered America’s credibility now risks hollowing it out. The more the U.S. defends Israel unconditionally — diplomatically, militarily, and rhetorically — the more it appears to many as complicit in instability rather than a guarantor of order. The alliance is not collapsing, but the reputational and strategic costs are rising faster than the perceived benefits.

1. In the Muslim World: From Mediator to Adversary

The Middle East was once a region where Washington could play the role of an arbiter — balancing between Israel and Arab states, and at times even presenting itself as the only credible broker for peace. That image has evaporated.

• Every U.S. veto at the United Nations to shield Israel from accountability during Gaza wars or settlement expansions reinforces the perception that Washington is not impartial but actively complicit.
• In countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, whose governments maintain security ties with Washington, public opinion is overwhelmingly hostile to America’s perceived bias. This creates a dangerous divergence: U.S.-aligned regimes face internal legitimacy crises while their populations look increasingly toward alternative partners like China, Russia, or even Türkiye.
• The symbolic cost is perhaps the greatest: America can no longer claim to champion justice or human rights in the Middle East. Instead, it is seen as underwriting humanitarian catastrophes.

2. In Europe: Growing Unease Among Allies

Even within the transatlantic camp, the U.S. position on Israel is no longer universally accepted.

• Countries like France, Spain, and Ireland have adopted openly critical stances on Washington’s handling of the Israel–Palestine issue. Calls for arms embargoes on Israel, recognition of Palestinian statehood, and stronger accountability measures highlight a widening rift.
• Germany and the UK remain largely aligned with Washington, but even there, domestic pressures are mounting as protests and public opinion turn more critical of unconditional support for Israel.
• For NATO, this divergence comes at a precarious time. With unity already tested by Ukraine and debates over burden-sharing, the Israel issue risks creating another axis of disagreement within the alliance — a luxury neither Washington nor Brussels can afford.

3. In the Global South: Double Standards and Declining Moral Authority

Perhaps the most profound cost lies outside the Western world.

• Across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, Washington’s credibility is undermined by its perceived selective application of international law. The U.S. insists on defending Ukraine’s sovereignty against Russia’s invasion, but excuses or justifies Israel’s continued occupation and settlement of Palestinian territories.
• For many Global South leaders, this is not just hypocrisy; it is proof that the so-called “rules-based order” is actually a system designed to protect Western allies while punishing adversaries.
• This perception drives nations toward alternative diplomatic poles — China with its non-interference doctrine, Russia with its anti-West rhetoric, and regional middle powers offering alternatives to U.S.-dominated frameworks.

4. In Strategic Terms: The Problem of Overstretch

The U.S. already faces the challenge of maintaining primacy in a multipolar world. China in the Indo-Pacific, Russia in Eastern Europe, and Iran in the Middle East each require resources, focus, and strategy. Adding unconditional support for Israel into this mix pushes Washington toward strategic overstretch.

• Militarily, the U.S. is compelled to maintain constant readiness for escalation in the Middle East, even as its Pentagon strategy prioritizes the Indo-Pacific.
• Diplomatically, America’s singular defense of Israel often consumes bandwidth at the United Nations and G20 that could otherwise be devoted to shaping global coalitions against China or addressing climate and economic issues.
• Economically, U.S. support for Israel, combined with sanctions on adversaries, risks provoking energy shocks and instability in global markets — consequences that alienate not just rivals but also trading partners.

A Strategic Sacrifice

The net result is a growing global perception that Washington is sacrificing its global leadership for one regional ally. While Israel undeniably delivers value to U.S. strategy, the costs — in legitimacy, alliance cohesion, and strategic bandwidth — are beginning to outweigh the returns.

What was once America’s greatest regional advantage risks becoming the anchor that drags down its global credibility.

Why Washington Cannot Walk Away

Given the mounting costs, one might ask: why doesn’t the United States recalibrate its relationship with Israel, the way it has adjusted alliances elsewhere? The answer is simple — Washington cannot, and likely will not, walk away. The U.S.–Israel bond is not merely a foreign policy choice; it is a structural feature of American power and politics. Three interlocking reasons explain why.

1. Domestic Politics: The Iron Cage of Consensus

Support for Israel in U.S. politics is not just bipartisan; it is near-constitutional.

• Congressional Consensus: Since the 1970s, aid to Israel has been protected by overwhelming bipartisan votes. Israel receives more cumulative U.S. aid than any other country in modern history, much of it written into multi-year packages immune from annual budget fights.
• Lobbying Power: Organizations like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and allied think tanks ensure that questioning military aid or criticizing Israeli policies carries political risk. Candidates who cross these red lines often face primary challenges or donor backlash.
• Evangelical Support: For tens of millions of evangelical Christians, support for Israel is a theological imperative tied to biblical prophecy. This creates a vast electoral base — especially influential in Republican politics — that demands unwavering backing for Israel.
• Democratic Politics: On the Democratic side, support is reinforced by historical guilt after the Holocaust and strong ties between Jewish-American communities and liberal politics. While progressives are increasingly critical of Israel, the establishment wing of the party remains firmly pro-Israel.

Together, these factors make support for Israel domestically untouchable in a way few other alliances are.

2. Alliance Signaling: Israel as the “Credibility Test”

Strategically, abandoning or even reducing support for Israel would send shockwaves across America’s alliance network.

• For Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and NATO allies, U.S. guarantees are the foundation of their security. If Washington were seen as wavering in its commitment to Israel — a country considered almost family in U.S. politics — allies would inevitably ask: if Israel can be abandoned, who is safe?
• In deterrence theory, credibility is often more important than capability. The U.S. has the strongest military in the world, but if allies doubt Washington’s will to act, the deterrent collapses.
• Israel therefore serves as a litmus test for American resolve: proof that the U.S. stands by its partners unconditionally, even under political or financial strain.

This makes Israel not just a Middle Eastern issue but a symbol for the entire U.S. alliance system.

3. Defense-Industrial Integration: A Shared Ecosystem

Finally, the U.S.–Israel partnership is deeply embedded in the military-industrial complex.

• Joint Development: Missile defense systems like Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and the Arrow program are funded jointly and integrated into U.S. defense planning. American forces benefit directly from Israeli innovations.
• Technology Transfer: Israel’s cutting-edge work in cybersecurity, AI, drones, and electronic warfare feeds into U.S. military capabilities. In return, Israel serves as a testing ground for U.S. hardware in real conflict environments.
• Economic Interests: Billions flow annually between American defense contractors and Israeli firms. To dismantle this ecosystem would mean disrupting entrenched financial and technological interests in both countries.

For the Pentagon, Israel is less a client and more a partner in research and development — one that improves U.S. power projection globally.

The Structural Lock-In

Taken together, these three pillars — domestic politics, alliance credibility, and defense-industrial integration — make the U.S.–Israel relationship unique. Washington can pressure Saudi Arabia, pivot away from Afghanistan, or recalibrate NATO spending. But Israel is different. It is not just another ally to be adjusted; it is part of the DNA of American grand strategy.

This is why, despite the rising costs, Washington cannot walk away. And this is precisely why critics argue the U.S. is trapped: locked into a relationship that increasingly erodes global credibility, yet politically and strategically impossible to undo.

The Strategic Paradox

For decades, Israel was seen as a net asset to American power projection. During the Cold War, it functioned as a counterweight to Soviet-backed regimes in the Middle East, a reliable intelligence partner, and a technological incubator for U.S. defense needs. Washington reaped clear strategic dividends.

But the global environment has changed. What once strengthened U.S. primacy now increasingly undermines it. This is the paradox: the closer Washington holds Israel, the more it risks weakening its global credibility and strategic reach.

1. Regional Isolation vs. Global Standing

• In the 1970s–1990s, U.S. backing for Israel coexisted with peace deals — the Camp David Accords, Oslo process — that gave Washington leverage as a “mediator.” America could argue it was shaping peace, not just underwriting conflict.
• In the post-2000 era, particularly after repeated Gaza wars, settlement expansions, and now the erosion of the two-state solution, U.S. support looks less like mediation and more like unconditional partisanship.
• For Arab publics and much of the Muslim world, the U.S. is no longer a broker but an enabler of occupation. This undercuts U.S. ability to lead broader coalitions in the Middle East or in the Global South.

2. The Double Standards Dilemma

• In Ukraine, Washington frames its struggle as a defense of sovereignty and international law. Yet in Palestine, the same principles are abandoned.
• This double standard is not lost on global audiences. From Africa to Asia to Latin America, governments increasingly use the “Palestine test” as shorthand for U.S. hypocrisy.
• The more the U.S. leans on Israel, the harder it becomes to sustain the narrative of a rules-based order. Every veto at the UN chips away at America’s claim to moral leadership.

3. Strategic Overstretch

• The U.S. is now juggling three grand theaters: Europe (deterring Russia), the Pacific (containing China), and the Middle East (shielding Israel).
• Unlike during the unipolar 1990s, Washington can no longer manage all fronts simultaneously without strain. Rivals exploit this.
  • China courts Gulf states with energy deals and arms sales.
  • Russia expands influence in Syria, Africa, and even in the Gulf.
  • Iran deepens ties with both Moscow and Beijing while funding regional proxies.
• America’s defense of Israel thus opens flanks elsewhere, making it appear reactive rather than strategically agile.

4. Domestic Costs of Foreign Alignment

• Unwavering support for Israel is also polarizing U.S. domestic politics. Younger generations, progressive Democrats, and even parts of the American Jewish community are increasingly critical of Israel’s policies.
• By binding U.S. policy so tightly to Israel, Washington risks a future in which foreign alignment fuels domestic fragmentation — a mirror of what overextension did to past great powers.

The Core Paradox

Israel was once America’s unsinkable aircraft carrier; today, it risks becoming America’s unsinkable liability. The paradox is that what made Israel indispensable in one era — military dominance, political symbolism, regional leverage — now accelerates U.S. isolation in another.

In other words, the very alliance meant to secure American leadership may be the one that hastens its decline.

The Future: Three Possible Outcomes

1. The Status Quo Holds: Washington doubles down on Israel, but the price is increasing isolation, a weakened NATO, and deeper alienation from the Global South.
2. Strategic Rebalancing: The U.S. maintains Israel’s security but re-engages seriously with Palestinian rights and regional diplomacy. This would help restore moral credibility, though it would require breaking taboos in U.S. domestic politics.
3. Erosion of Leadership: If America refuses to adjust, the world will increasingly see it as a superpower captured by one client state’s interests — a nation strong in arms but weak in legitimacy.

Final Thought

The U.S.–Israel relationship has always been more than a foreign policy choice; it has been treated as a strategic constant. For decades, this alliance offered Washington clear dividends — a foothold in the Middle East, a partner in intelligence and military innovation, and a reliable bulwark against hostile regimes. Israel was the “unsinkable aircraft carrier” of American power.

But the international system has changed. In today’s multipolar world, where credibility and perception shape alliances as much as tanks and missiles, Washington’s unconditional support for Israel increasingly erodes rather than enhances U.S. global leadership.

• In the Muslim world, America’s mediator image is dead; it is now seen as a partisan actor complicit in occupation and humanitarian crises.
• In Europe, fractures appear within NATO as allies like France, Spain, and Ireland chart their own course on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
• Across the Global South, U.S. calls for sovereignty and international law ring hollow when paired with blanket cover for Israeli actions.
• At home, the alignment fuels generational and partisan divides, undermining the very cohesion that sustains great power projection.

The paradox is unavoidable: what was once a cornerstone of U.S. strategy is now becoming a millstone around its neck. By binding itself so tightly to Israel, Washington risks losing not just credibility but also the strategic flexibility required to manage its larger rivalries with China and Russia.

The central question is no longer whether the U.S. can defend Israel — it can, and it will. The real question is whether the cost of that defense is the slow erosion of America’s own role as global leader. History offers a warning: great powers rarely fall from military defeat alone; they fall when their alliances collapse and their moral authority crumbles.

If Washington cannot recalibrate its approach, the “unsinkable aircraft carrier” may yet drag the United States into waters too deep to escape.