Israel’s influence over the United States and America’s strategic impasse

In remarks to the American media, Israel’s genocidal prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, declared: “The war with Iran is not over. The enrichment facilities must be dismantled, and the highly enriched uranium must be eliminated.” He insisted that the permanent destruction of Tehran’s nuclear capacity was imperative.

The broader picture in the Middle East is this: the United States is simultaneously attempting to make Israel more effective, more powerful, and territorially larger, while also attacking those countries that unsettle Israel or resist its regional influence. It fragments them, destabilizes them, occupies them. What occurred in Libya, Iraq, and Syria, as well as the joint American-Israeli aggression directed at Iran, must be understood from this perspective no less than from any other.

We know that Israel exercises enormous influence over the United States. The effects and reflections of that influence are visible even in Washington’s relations with Türkiye. Israel influences the United States to such an extent that America loves whom Israel loves and rejects whom Israel rejects. American presidents hesitate to take a step in the Middle East without first consulting Israel or securing its approval. For that reason, it is especially noteworthy that, in recent months, many American experts, politicians, and commentators have openly said of the attacks on Iran: “This is not America’s war; it is Israel’s war. It is wrong for the United States to place itself so completely under Israel’s direction and follow in its wake.” For the first time, Israel is being criticized this openly and this loudly within the United States itself. For the first time, America’s limitless and unconditional support for Israel is being questioned so directly.

The extent of Israel’s hostility toward Türkiye

Israel’s influence over the United States, as seen in the joint American-Israeli aggression against Iran, also became apparent during the ceasefire negotiations. Israel did everything in its power to prevent the United States from accepting a ceasefire. Although Pakistan succeeded in persuading both Washington and Tehran to accept a regional ceasefire, Israel immediately pressured the United States and ensured that Lebanon was excluded from the scope of the agreement.

Israel’s hostile posture toward Türkiye is likewise striking. By supporting terrorist organizations operating against Türkiye, Israel seeks to force the country to exhaust its energy and resources in prolonged struggles against armed groups both domestically and along its immediate periphery. In this regard, the most functional and useful instrument at Israel’s disposal is the PKK terrorist organization. The United States also supports the PKK. Accordingly, the American-Israeli axis jointly backs structures affiliated with the PKK, namely the PYD-YPG in Syria and PJAK in Iran. It will be recalled that Israel also supported the 2017 independence referendum organized in northern Iraq under the leadership of the Barzani administration. Israel announced that, should the referendum produce a declaration of independence, it would be among the first states to recognize an independent Kurdish state separating from Iraq.

The American economy Is not on a healthy trajectory

From an economic standpoint as well, the United States is compelled to wage wars, launch attacks, create new customers for its arms industry, and secure fresh military contracts. The American economy has become dependent on war. Within the country’s dominant sectors, the military-industrial structure occupies a singularly privileged and strategic position. U.S. public debt has surpassed 39 trillion dollars. Private-sector debt, including household debt, has reached 42 trillion dollars. The budget deficit approached 1.8 trillion dollars in 2025. Last year, the trade deficit climbed to 901.5 billion dollars. At the same time, the country’s productive capacity and competitive strength continue to erode.

By attacking Iran alongside Israel, the United States sought not only to neutralize Iran’s missile capacity and nuclear capabilities, but also to alter the regime in Tehran and, if possible, even redraw the country’s borders. It inflicted severe damage on Iran and struck heavy blows, yet failed to force capitulation. It achieved neither its military objectives nor its political aims.

Another American calculation was this: by striking Iran, which sells 90 percent of its oil exports to China, Washington hoped to open a serious breach in China’s energy supply chain. China obtains nearly half of the oil it consumes from Gulf countries such as Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Altogether, 45 percent of the oil China uses passes through the Strait of Hormuz. It should also be noted that the Strait of Hormuz is critically important not only for China, but also for Asia’s major economies such as Japan, India, and South Korea. One must not forget that all three maintain close relations with the United States.

While attacking Iran, the United States also sought to weaken China — and failed

While calculating that Iran would emerge weakened, the United States also intended to batter China in the process. It failed. That failure rendered Washington even more aggressive and drove it into deeper panic. For regardless of what the United States does, the trajectory of history continues to favor China.

Consider the figures. In 1990, China accounted for just 1.8 percent of the global economy. Today, that figure stands at 18.5 percent. In other words, over the past thirty-six years, China’s share of the world economy has increased tenfold. The United States, by contrast, accounted for 34 percent of the global economy in 1985; by 1990, its share had already fallen to 26 percent. Today it has declined further, to 22 percent. As can clearly be seen, America’s share has been steadily diminishing. Across the Atlantic, Europe’s decline has been even more pronounced. In 1990, the European Union accounted for more than 27 percent of the global economy. Today its share has fallen to 17 percent. In other words, over the past thirty-six years, the European Union has contracted by ten percentage points.

This decline in Europe inevitably weakens the European Union’s appeal while simultaneously intensifying internal disputes within the bloc. It has also emboldened those advocating withdrawal from the Union. Following Britain’s departure from the European Union through the 2016 Brexit referendum, similar debates have proliferated across Europe. Those advocating France’s withdrawal speak of “Frexit,” while proponents of Sweden’s departure invoke the term “Swexit.”

These debates are not confined to the European Union alone. Parallel discussions are also emerging within NATO, particularly as President Trump publicly humiliates NATO members and even suggests that the United States itself could leave the alliance. Slovenia, for example, one of NATO’s smaller members, is debating the possibility of putting withdrawal from the alliance to a referendum. For a small-scale country, this is undoubtedly a bold and highly consequential discussion.

What ultimately becomes visible is this: as the United States weakens, the fractures within the Atlantic alliance deepen, and disputes within major Western institutions such as NATO and the European Union grow increasingly severe. The joint American-Israeli attacks against Iran, together with Iran’s resistance, are making those fractures even more visible.