The narrative surrounding U.S. foreign policy, particularly under the Biden administration, often suggests that the United States struggles to rein in Israel’s military actions in Gaza and beyond due to the influence of a powerful Israel lobby. Some commentators insist that the administration is at the mercy of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, unable to control the significant military and political decisions being made. However, there is a contrasting perspective that posits the Biden administration is, in fact, utilizing Israel as a tool to achieve its own foreign policy goals, which aligns with a broader agenda for America’s dominance in the Middle East. This viewpoint argues that rather than being subservient to Israeli interests, the Biden administration is pleased to see Israel act aggressively, seeing it as a means to project power and retaliate against perceived humiliations suffered by the U.S. in the region over the past several decades.
Notably, observers like Gilbert Doctorow support the thesis that the United States directs Israel’s military campaigns rather than passive observers or enablers. Far from being outraged by Israel’s actions, the administration seems content to allow these actions to continue as a calculated strategy to reinforce American hegemony in the region. Doctorow argues that this situation reflects a long-standing desire from U.S. foreign policy circles to reshape the Middle Eastern landscape to their advantage, particularly after setbacks such as the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Such ambitions are echoed in the rhetoric of various commentators and media outlets, which emphasize the U.S. intention to use Israel’s military might to further American strategic objectives.
Counterarguments exist, however, with figures like Professor John Mearsheimer and Larry Johnson advocating instead for the mainstream perspective that Netanyahu is dictating American policy. This debate was notably highlighted on platforms such as the “Judging Freedom” channel, where the dynamics of U.S.-Israeli relations prompted significant discussion. Although many respected voices in alternative media were dismissive of the idea that the U.S. was the dominant force, the notion that Biden’s foreign policy is reflective of a more complex agenda is gaining traction. This suggests that there is more depth to Biden’s actions than mere subservience, indicating a potential recalibration of power dynamics rather than a simple dog-wagging scenario.
The foreign policy landscape has also prompted analysis from prominent commentators like Adam Tooze, who examines the implications of U.S. actions in light of the military engagements in the Middle East and Ukraine. He proposes that what appears as disorganized muddling through could actually represent a more calculated strategy by the Biden administration to incrementally reshape global power structures, notwithstanding the internal turmoil faced in these conflicts. Instead of merely responding to aggression, Tooze suggests that the U.S. is engaging in a deliberate escalation that aligns with a clearer ambition to redefine its role in the world post-Cold War. This argument complicates the narrative of a floundering administration lacking clear direction.
Moreover, this perspective connects to the larger notion of revisionist power, where the U.S. can be seen as seeking to overturn existing global norms and treaty agreements much like emerging powers striving for a broader influence. After decades of stagnant post-Cold War policies, the Biden administration might be perceived as a vessel for a revisionist ambition reminiscent of earlier neoconservative strategies. Tooze’s insights reflect an underlying belief that the U.S. is redefining its approach to international relations and not merely reacting to events but actively attempting to shape them in accordance with its aspirations for global dominance.
Finally, an examination of President Biden’s political history reveals a long-standing alignment with conservative policies and hawkish internationalism. His previous collaboration with neoconservatives, particularly during the Iraq War, foreshadows a continuity in his foreign policy approach. This advocacy of military intervention and strategic chaos could suggest that the Biden administration’s current policies are a natural extension of his bipartisan support for aggressive military action. The view that Biden’s actions are driven by a desire to impose chaos rather than a response to external pressures portrays his administration not as a puppet below the strings of other powers but as an active agent pursuing its interests globally. This framing encourages a reassessment of current U.S. tactics in the Middle East, suggesting that they follow a historical pattern of seeking power through coordinated, often violent actions, rather than a defensive or reactive stance.
