Despite how that title could be read, I mean this as a serious question. I want to know why you folks think the US is still allied with Israel today. What does the US get out of it at this point strategically? Why could it not get the same or more from other allies in the region? How have US strategic interests that are met by an alliance with Israel evolved over time? I am thinking about this in purely realist terms and not from an emotional or moral standpoint.
Clearly oil and control of shipping lanes are the two primary strategic interests in the Middle East today. In the past, a presence on the southern marches of the Soviet Union would have been an interest also, and may still be in relation to Russia and the central Asian republics. Of course, oil comes in there too.
My few thoughts on the other side, how about yours in the comments?
My understanding is that the US relationship with Israel begins with the US positioning itself in the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East in relation to the traditional European powers in the region: UK and France. Siding with Egypt during the Suez crisis would have been part of this too. I have the impression that way back when, US political elites did not have the same degree of cultural attachment to Israel as a client state, but perhaps that is wrong.
Once the various Arab states in the western Middle East became more or less associated with the Soviet Union in the late 1950s and early 1960s (?), the US had a Cold War interest in an alliance with Israel. The US had Turkey, Israel, and Iran in the 1960s and early 1970s. The Soviets had Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in their various guises. The US (and Israel) "lost" Iran in 1979, but obviously the Iranian revolution did not lead them into the Soviet camp. So my argument would be that hroughout this interval, a major reason the US was allied with Israel had to do with the nature of the confrontation with the Soviets in the region. In this argument, the adamant support of the US for Israel in 1973 was about global geopolitics more than it was regional strategic interests. This seems plausible given that the US was willing to incur the wrath of OPEC to support Israel.
It seems to me that the Iranian Revolution was an important event in the evolution of the US relationship with Israel. The US lost an important military ally in the greater Middle East region and no longer had the same checker board of close allies, being reduced at that point to Israel and Turkey. Shortly thereafter we picked up Iraq, but of course still maintained covert relations with Iran during the Iran-Contra affair.
It is at this point, the mid 1980s, that I become somewhat unclear on the strategic reasons for the US alliance with Israel. From that point until today, it seems a strong realist argument could be made that the interests of US capital would be far better served by trying to achieve closer alliances with Arab nations. The only way to do that realistically would have been to repudiate the relationship with Israel. Obviously from the mid 1980s on the US has been able to maintain relations with Israel and many, even most, of the Arab states. However, events of the last two weeks demonstrate that the US is willing now as in 1973 to choose sides in a way that might not be in concert with at least one view of US strategic interests.
However, I am not entirely sure I understand the reasons for the continued closeness of the US-Israeli relationship. I think the reasons on the Israeli side are rather more obvious (diplomatic, economic, and military support from a superpower is a good thing for a small nation with few natural resources and many hostile neighbord). But what does the US get now in return? Is it something beyond realpolitic at this point? Is it simply such an established part of US foreign policy, so entrenched for so many professional generations, that it is no longer even questioned?
I know my little sketch is quite inadequate and perhaps inaccurate. I know less about this than I would like to. What are your thoughts?