Follow us on social

google cta
2023-01-30t171455z_269846990_rc2do98pzutz_rtrmadp_3_israel-usa-blinken-netanyahu-scaled

Is Israel playing hardball, sucking the US into plot to attack Iran?

Not only would such a move be unconstitutional, but strategically stupid

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

The Israeli government has been keeping the Biden administration in the dark about the details of its planned reprisal against Iran.

According to sources tapped by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News, the Netanyahu government has not shared information with the U.S. about what it is going to do “even after American military officials have discussed possibly supporting Israeli retaliation with intelligence or airstrikes of their own, according to two U.S. officials.”

Israel’s lack of communication with the U.S. is remarkable on its own, but the fact that the U.S. military has been floating the possibility of launching airstrikes on Iranian targets to support Israel’s attack is alarming.

The U.S. cannot legally initiate hostilities against Iran in support of an Israeli reprisal, no matter how the administration might try to dress it up as a “defensive” action. It is also completely unacceptable under our constitutional system for U.S. forces to participate in an attack on another country without Congressional debate and authorization. Unless there is an attack on the United States or its forces, the president cannot order the military to engage in hostilities on his own. The U.S. military shouldn’t be participating or assisting in such an attack just because the president says so.

Any U.S. support for an Israeli attack on Iran would be a serious mistake. Direct Israeli attacks on Iran will not end the back-and-forth reprisals between the two states. They practically guarantee that the Iranian leadership will feel compelled to respond in kind again. If Washington is seen as assisting the Israeli attack in any way, that could also expose U.S. troops and ships in the region to Iranian retaliation.

Obviously direct U.S. strikes on Iranian forces or installations would invite more attacks on American personnel and interests.

While the Biden administration continues to provide unconditional backing to Israel no matter what its government does, U.S.-Israeli relations have still sunk to new lows. Israel has repeatedly carried out attacks in Syria, Lebanon and Iran without giving Washington much or any advance notice despite the extensive support and protection that the U.S. has been providing.

In the case of the intense air strikes that killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah along with possibly hundreds of civilians, the Israeli government reportedly gave the U.S. no notification before launching the attack. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu may have assumed that the strikes were so aggressive that the U.S. would oppose them if it knew about them earlier.

According to journalist Laura Rozen, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blocked Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, from traveling to the United States this week to meet with the Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Netanyahu reportedly insisted that he would not permit Gallant to go to Washington until Biden called him and the Israeli cabinet approved the attack plan. The president and the prime minister have not spoken since August. There was a report on Wednesday that Biden would speak to Netanyahu that day.

The Biden administration is responsible for encouraging what international relations scholar Barry Posen has called “reckless driving” by the Israeli government. Posen explained the “reckless driving” concept in his book Restraint this way: “Small states, or non-state actors, which for any number of reasons have become confident in the U.S. commitment, behave recklessly. They pursue their own narrow interests even when they are at variance with the interests of the United States.”

Because the U.S. has reflexively backed Israel every step of the way and helped to shield Israel from the consequences of its attacks on other countries, Netanyahu has taken advantage of that unwavering support to take far greater risks than he likely would have otherwise. This has been disastrous for the region and terrible for U.S. interests, and it has been made possible by Washington’s excessive commitment.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin reportedly described Israeli behavior as “playing with house money.” As a Washington Post report put it, Austin meant that Israel was “taking big shots at its adversaries, knowing that the United States, as Israel’s chief ally, would throw its military and diplomatic weight behind it.” Administration officials do recognize the perverse effect that their lockstep support has on Israeli decision-making, but they are unwilling to change course and rein Netanyahu in.

The U.S. should be urging Israel to refrain from further attacks on Iran and Iranian forces, and it should be using its considerable leverage to make sure that Israel doesn’t attack. Given the relatively limited damage and lack of casualties from Iran’s two missile barrages, another round of strikes would only stoke conflict and provoke more reprisals. Neither Israel nor the United States can afford a war with Iran, and our government should be doing everything it can to make that war less likely.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no will in the Biden administration to halt the slide to a larger conflict that involves U.S. forces.


L-R: U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands after their meeting at the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem, on Monday, January 30, 2023. DEBBIE HILL/Pool via REUTERS
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
United Nations
Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||

We're burying the rules based order. But what's next?

Global Crises

In a Davos speech widely praised for its intellectual rigor and willingness to confront established truths, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney finally laid the fiction of the “rules-based international order” to rest.

The “rules-based order” — or RBIO — was never a neutral description of the post-World War II system of international law and multilateral institutions. Rather, it was a discourse born out of insecurity over the West’s decline and unwillingness to share power. Aimed at preserving the power structures of the past by shaping the norms and standards of the future, the RBIO was invariably something that needed to be “defended” against those who were accused of opposing it, rather than an inclusive system that governed relations between all states.

keep readingShow less
china trump
President Donald Trump announces the creation of a critical minerals reserve during an event in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, February 2, 2026. Trump announced the creation of “Project Vault,” a rare earth stockpile to lower reliance on China for rare earths and other resources. Photo by Bonnie Cash/Pool/Sipa USA

Trump vs. his China hawks

Asia-Pacific

In the year since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, China hawks have started to panic. Leading lights on U.S. policy toward Beijing now warn that Trump is “barreling toward a bad bargain” with the Chinese Communist Party. Matthew Pottinger, a key architect of Trump’s China policy in his first term, argues that the president has put Beijing in a “sweet spot” through his “baffling” policy decisions.

Even some congressional Republicans have criticized Trump’s approach, particularly following his decision in December to allow the sale of powerful Nvidia AI chips to China. “The CCP will use these highly advanced chips to strengthen its military capabilities and totalitarian surveillance,” argued Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who chairs the influential Select Committee on Competition with China.

keep readingShow less
Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?
Top image credit: bluestork/shutterstock.com

Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?

Latin America

On January 7, the White House announced its plans to withdraw from 66 international bodies whose work it had deemed inconsistent with U.S. national interests.

While many of these organizations were international in nature, three of them were specific to the Americas — the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, and the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. The decision came on the heels of the Dominican Republic postponing the X Summit of the Americas last year following disagreements over who would be invited and ensuing boycotts.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.