The U.S. and Us: Expanding Partnership

In normal times, the statement by the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen — according to which the strength of ties between the United States and Israel was especially relevant for the both sides at a time of enormous regional instability and change — could have been interpreted as one more traditional declaration. However, these are not normal times, but rather an hour of raging waves crashing into the foundations of American strategy in the Middle East.

The place of Israel in the array of the U.S. strategic interests has known its ups and downs: During the Cold War, some referred to it as “America’s aircraft carrier in the Middle East,” but in recent years, some have claimed it to be more a burden than an asset.

Tom Friedman wrote that the end of the cold war signified the end of Israel’s importance as a strategic asset for the United States. That was a time when the free world had dozed off to the sounds of the pinkie tunes of thinkers like Francis Fukuyama and Daniel Bell, who prophesied the “end of history” and “end of ideology” — tunes that ceased only when it became apparent that Islamist fundamentalism and terrorism are no less dangerous a threat than facing off with the Soviet Union.

All that was yesterday. The earthquake spreading today over the Arab world, from North Africa to Bahrain, has torn into pieces the strategic fabric of the U.S. in the Middle East. Niall Fergusson, currently considered to be one of the most important military historians in the world, commented in his Newsweek column this week that, unlike Israel, America has yet to formulate coherent foreign policy with what is happening. Also, the exaggerated emphasis of the administration on the Palestinian issue, in general, and on building in the settlements, in particular, distracted it from seeing the fomentation in Arab countries.

Clashes in Bahrain and the location of the military base (specifically, naval), the most important to the U.S. in the Middle East, definitely underscore the American dilemma: How does one oppose overly measures against Shiite demonstrators when it is clear that these protesters are being incited by Iran and are hostile, not only to their ruler but to America as well?

What the Americans have not always comprehended is that strong political ties, including security interests, are not solely a function of relations between governments but also, and perhaps primarily, of shared values and cultures with the populations in these countries.

In the Middle East, this moral infrastructure exists in no country except for Israel. This fact and the necessary conclusions may be not adopted immediately and fully by American policy shapers, but it stands to reason that the importance of Israel as a unique American strategic asset would raise its standing. That will be evidenced, for example, in the upgrading of programs for the pre-placement of American equipment and weapons in Israel and in overall security cooperation. Of course, there is no need to stress the importance of strategic cooperation with America for Israel. But even if there were a need, the Security Council veto manifests this, once again. Whoever believes that Israel is entangling the U.S. should understand the contrary to be true: Under the circumstances, the partnership between them will grow (and so will Israel’s share in it).