Amidst a tumultuous backdrop of ongoing conflict in Gaza, a significant strategy deployed by the U.S. has come into the spotlight.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the Biden administration's $20 billion arms deal with Israel has not persuaded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cease fire in Gaza.
The deal, confirmed just before Secretary of State Antony Blinken's Middle East tour, included F-15 warplanes, military vehicles, and an array of munitions scheduled for delivery between 2026 and 2029.
Despite Blinken’s endeavors to forge a cease-fire during his visit, his mission concluded without achieving its intended goal. This situation reflects the complexities of diplomacy in conflict zones.
Strategic Diplomacy and Military Influence
Historically, the U.S. has provided over $3 billion annually in military aid to Israel, a substantial portion of which covers weapon acquisitions. This longstanding partnership underscores the depth of the U.S.-Israel security alliance. Yet, recent developments have strained this dynamic as civilian casualties mount in Gaza.
President Joe Biden attempted to leverage this substantial military aid by withholding shipments of large bombs, aiming to curb Israel's military aggression. However, his efforts were seemingly in vain as the arms transactions continued almost unabated.
Amid increased Israeli military action, the Biden administration tempered its arms shipments, responding to the escalating human toll in Gaza. This measured approach reflects an acute awareness of the optics and impacts of U.S. military aid in conflict zones.
International Reactions and Civilian Concerns
Fears of Iranian retaliation, spurred by recent assassinations in Tehran and Beirut, have intensified the geopolitical stakes, compelling the U.S. to steadfastly back Israel despite international outcry over civilian deaths. Concerns intensify as reports suggest potential violations of humanitarian law involving U.S.-supplied weaponry.
State Department and administration officials openly expressed their concerns regarding these incidents, which is indicative of the internal discord concerning U.S. strategies in the region. This disquiet is mirrored globally as analysts and policy-makers debate the efficacy and morality of continued arms support under such contentious circumstances.
Rachel Stohl, a noted arms policy analyst, pointed out the daunting challenge of using arms deals to guide national policy abroad, stating:
There is often no clear indication that weapon sales have changed the policies of the recipient country. What happens is we give implicit permission for countries to act in a certain way.
Political Repercussions and Ethical Dilemmas
Criticisms abound from various quarters, including Congress, where some question the wisdom of trying to exert control over all nations through arms leverage, especially during active conflict. This sentiment was echoed by a Republican congressional official who criticized the inadequacies of such an approach.
Despite these qualms, the State Department has reiterated its unwavering commitment to Israel's security, stressing the increased regional threats, which justify robust U.S. support. This narrative is championed by Netanyahu who argued to American lawmakers that swift military aid could curtail the conflict and prevent regional escalation.
Amidst these turbulent dynamics, Daniel Levy, a Middle East expert, commented on the potential repercussions of the U.S.'s actions, suggesting that Netanyahu could perceive the continuous military backing as a form of empowerment rather than an incentive to de-escalate.
Conclusion
The $20 billion arms sale by the Biden administration, designed to coerce Israel into a cease-fire, has not yielded the influence over Netanyahu's policies as hoped. With the conflict enduring and the geopolitical chessboard more convoluted, the U.S. finds itself at a crossroads with its approach to international diplomacy and military aid. Debates continue over the strategic, ethical, and human impacts of its decisions, shaping a narrative of cautious diplomacy interspersed with urgent humanitarian concerns.
