A U.S. Marine rapid response force of 2,000 Marines and sailors is headed to the Mediterranean in response to escalating tensions in the region. The Marines join two U.S. warships that have already arrived in Israeli waters and are meant to deter Iran and Hezbollah from joining Hamas's fight against Israel in the wake of the events of October 7. Many have hailed the maneuver as the responsible move for an ally, but they are wrong: Deploying troops to the Jewish state is not only not in America's interests, but it would only harm Israel. It would be a mistake for Israel to accept U.S. troops, just as it is a mistake of the U.S. to send them.
The reason for this comes down to the larger picture of what's at stake in this war. As leading Middle East analyst Evelyn Gordon noted, Iran's objective in supporting Hamas's massacre was to demonstrate that Israel is powerless, in order to dissuade Saudi Arabia from aligning with Western powers. In the immediate lead up to the events of October 7, Israel and Saudi Arabia were approaching something like normalizing relations; the thawing Israeli-Saudi relations were the catalyst for such a reckless gambit on the part of Hamas.
Israel's main goal right now, then, must be to demonstrate its power. And indeed, Israel has enough troops, of excellent quality, to fight on two or three fronts. Certainly, dealing with Hamas will require no U.S. troops. A well-coordinated and well-executed military maneuver on the IDF's part must be Israel's geo-political strategy.
More generally speaking, the purpose of the Jewish state has always been self-rule and self-protection for the Jews. Should Israel fail to demonstrate such a capability, it will lose legitimacy in the eyes of its own people and Jews around the world. Moreover, no country can be considered sovereign if it relinquishes a monopoly on the use of violence within its borders. Why not simply plant Old Glory and call the Holy Land the 51st state?
In fact, Israeli sovereignty much more than Israeli dependence is in the U.S.'s best interest. The U.S./Israel relationship is built on many things, from shared identities of Biblical heritage to representative government to common modes of commerce. Yet the Israel-America alliance relies most heavily on mutual strategic interests. And those depend on Israeli strength rather than Israeli dependency.
It is in the interest of the U.S. to have an ally in the Middle East that can be trusted to have both the will and power to back up U.S. endeavors in the region. That ally must be strong. If Israel is weak, why would U.S. need a client state surrounded by enemies that needs to be rescued every five to 10 years? Israel ceases to be a good bet for U.S. foreign policy if it is a client state that cannot stand on its own two feet.
This would be true even were the U.S. not already engaged in two fronts: the war with Russia in Ukraine and a brewing hegemonic competition in the South China sea. It would be a great folly to enter a third front.
The U.S. will not look any weaker if it does not deploy troops to Israel, especially because Israel will not lose. And when Israel wins the war, the U.S. will look stronger because it is supported by strong allies. But if the U.S. sends troops and then wins the war for Israel, the U.S. will actually look weaker, since its greatest asset in the Middle East will be demonstrated to be a lemon.
Think of it this way: There is no question whether the United States military can demolish Hezbollah; it's obvious to everyone that it can. The question at stake is, does the U.S. have to defend every single corner of its sphere of influence, or do its alliances allow it the freedom to focus where it wills?
The less force exerted by the U.S., the greater U.S. deterrence will be.
Indeed, one of the only things President Trump and President Biden agreed on was the importance of the U.S. getting out of the Middle East. We should not give up on that achievement.
There are many ways the U.S. can loyally support Israel—with munitions, logistics, and diplomacy (which has already proven challenging). None of these require risking the lives of U.S. troops or dismantling Israel's prestige in the region.
When Argentina invaded sovereign British territory in the Falkland's War, President Reagan offered a strong shoulder for Thatcher to lean on. Yet he refrained from taking responsibility for the actual fighting. This policy preserved British deterrence and situated the U.K. as significant power at the U.S.'s side.
Biden must allow the Jewish people to demonstrate that they are a strong U.S. ally in the Middle East.
Hadar Ahiad Hazony is a doctoral candidate in political theory at the University of Notre Dame. His research focuses on the questions of power, inequality, and hierarchy in 19th century German philosophy.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
About the writer
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here.
