To the casual observer, the foreign policy of major powers often appears guided by humanitarian concern, democratic values, and global stability. Yet a closer examination of international politics suggests that these narratives frequently coexist with, and sometimes obscure, deeper strategic calculations. In the case of the United States and Israel, the relationship is often framed as a moral alliance rooted in shared values and security needs. However, from a realist perspective, the partnership can also be understood as a critical mechanism through which the United States sustains strategic influence across the Middle East.
Realist theory begins with a simple assumption: states operate in an anarchic international system and pursue power to ensure survival. Moral language may accompany foreign policy, but rarely determines it on its own. In this context, US support for Israel should not be viewed solely as altruistic or ideological, but as part of a broader effort to maintain regional leverage in one of the world’s most strategically vital regions. Since 1948, the United States has provided Israel with over $150 billion in bilateral assistance, the majority in military aid, and the US Congress in 2023 allocated $14.5 billion in military aid to Israel following the October 7th attacks by Hamas.
The Middle East remains central to global politics due to its energy reserves, trade corridors, and geopolitical position between Europe, Asia, and Africa. For Washington, maintaining influence in this region has long been a priority, particularly as rival powers such as Russia and China seek to expand their own footholds. Russia’s military intervention in Syria in 2015 and China’s growing investment in Middle Eastern infrastructure and port facilities have contributed to American concerns about long-term strategic competition. Israel, situated at the heart of the region and surrounded by hostile state and non-state actors, provides the United States with a uniquely positioned strategic partner.
Counterterrorism further reinforces this relationship. The United States has consistently framed its support for Israel as part of a broader effort to combat terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Following the October 7 attacks, Biden repeatedly described support for Israel as part of a wider struggle against terrorism, reinforcing this policy framing. While these groups undoubtedly pose security threats, the persistence of terrorism also creates the strategic justification for continued US military engagement, arms transfers, and intelligence cooperation in the region. From a realist standpoint, counterterrorism thus functions not only as a security objective but also as a mechanism that sustains American presence and influence.
One of the most significant benefits Israel offers to Washington is access to intelligence. Intelligence cooperation between Washington and Jerusalem expanded significantly after the 1973 Yom Kippur War and deepened further following the 9/11 attacks. Israel possesses advanced human intelligence networks, cyber capabilities, and surveillance infrastructure that operate in close proximity to adversarial actors such as Iran and Iran-aligned proxy groups. For the United States, this effectively places a highly capable intelligence hub within the operational environment of its principal regional challengers. Rather than relying solely on distant bases for power projection, Washington benefits from intelligence gathered on the ground, often in real time.
Iran occupies a central role in this strategic calculus. US policy has increasingly focused on containing Iranian influence and preventing the expansion of its nuclear capabilities. The Trump administration’s 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the subsequent reimposition of sanctions reflected a renewed effort to constrain Tehran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly described Iran as Israel’s “greatest existential threat,” aligning closely with Washington’s strategic assessments. Israel’s proximity to Iran and its regional proxies makes it a critical asset in this effort. By supporting Israel militarily and diplomatically, the United States can indirectly constrain Iran’s strategic freedom while avoiding the costs of direct confrontation. This approach aligns with a classic realist preference for using regional allies to balance against adversaries.
Beyond security concerns, economic and strategic infrastructure also matter. The Middle East hosts some of the world’s busiest trade routes and remains indispensable to global energy markets. The 2020 Abraham Accords, brokered by the Trump administration, normalised relations between Israel and several Arab states, reinforcing Israel’s integration into a broader US-aligned regional framework. Stability, or at least contained instability, along these corridors directly affects global supply chains and economic power. A strong US–Israel alliance contributes to Washington’s ability to shape outcomes in these spaces, particularly as competition with China and Russia intensifies.
It would be misleading to suggest that humanitarian considerations can never play a role in US foreign policy. However, realism does not deny the presence of moral rhetoric; it questions whether such rhetoric drives outcomes. In practice, the endurance of the US–Israel relationship suggests that strategic utility explains its resilience, rather than moral obligation alone. Humanitarian aid, diplomatic shielding, and military assistance often align conveniently with American strategic interests, reinforcing the idea that ideals and interests are not mutually exclusive, but that interests usually prevail.
Ultimately, the US–Israel relationship illustrates a broader truth about international politics: great powers rarely pursue peace as an end in itself. Instead, they pursue stability on terms that preserve their dominance. Israel serves as a gateway through which the United States projects power, gathers intelligence, counters rivals, and maintains leverage in a region vital to the global balance of power. Whether this strategy produces long-term stability or perpetuates cycles of conflict is a separate question; one that realism acknowledges but does not resolve.
Venuka Joseph is an Accounting & Finance student at Leeds Trinity University with a keen interest in geopolitics and international relations. His academic work sits at the intersection of financial structures and macroeconomic analysis.
Leave a Reply