Blinken's visit proves that the United States has no one to talk to in Jerusalem

By Alun Banks

For years, one of the clear indicators of an active American policy and great frustration has been the increase and frequency of visits by American secretaries of state. Henry Kissinger's rounds of dialogue, after the Yom Kippur War; 19 visits by Warren Christopher during Bill Clinton’s term, against the backdrop of reaching the Oslo Accords. 16 visits by John Kirby to jumpstart the peace process; And now, Secretary of State Antony Blinken's fifth visit in the last three months. There is a suspicion that Blinken wants to compare his travels with those of his predecessors, but political circumstances in Israel have made American success impossible.

Blinken's current visit has well-thought-out goals: First: to continue recommending and demanding a change in war plans, from a high-power war to a low-power war. This goal is based on the conclusions of the United States that the war, in its current context, has exhausted itself, and that the Israeli goal of “dismantling Hamas” is unachievable, without an actual occupation of the Gaza Strip, and that the goal must be redefined, instead of getting involved in a war that extends for years and costly management. And deadly for Gaza; Second: Although Israel refuses to discuss the political issue of “the day after the war,” seriously, Blinken has a Sisyphean goal, which is: to continue warning Israel of the repercussions of ignoring; Third: Continue trying to prevent an escalation between Israel and Hezbollah. The United States understands the fact that Israel cannot and must not tolerate Hezbollah's attacks and "on the threshold of war." However, it considers that the scenario of escalation between the two parties more broadly entails a real possibility of implicating the United States, which is convinced that Israel does not take American interests into account, and does not know the limits of its power. Fourth: The visit carries a symbolic dimension with regard to Israel: despite Benjamin Netanyahu’s ingratitude, despite not being considered an ally in Washington, and despite his belittling and thwarting of every American idea, the United States continues to support Israel and engage for regional considerations.

Whether these goals are achievable, or whether the visit is a useless step for the administration and a precursor to a fundamental change in its policy, the bifurcation of interests and political gaps between the United States and Israel are increasing. At the end of the week, The Washington Post published a long analytical article, citing “high-level sources in the administration” as saying: The American administration has the impression that Netanyahu is seeking to prolong the war without need for that, and he is escalating the confrontation with Hezbollah for political considerations related to his personal survival. And with his coalition. The New York Times wrote something to this effect about the expanding crisis between the two countries.

The crisis between the two countries results from 3 dimensions: Netanyahu; The war in Gaza; Future geopolitical architecture of the Middle East. On a personal level, Netanyahu suffers from a deep distrust of the Biden administration. The United States also does not depend on Netanyahu, does not see him as an ally, and is not convinced of his management of the government and the war. It is surprised by what it considers ingratitude on his part, and doubts his motives, and is convinced that his goal is a frontal confrontation.

Regarding the Gaza war, the United States supported Israel in an unprecedented manner from the first moment. It also believed in the justice of this war, supported its steps, justified its size and the strength of the military response, and ignored Israel’s massive military response, throughout October and November, and granted it a diplomatic umbrella that paid the price for it in isolation in the international community, and provided it with military equipment in large quantities, and pledged to pay 14.5 billion dollars in aid, despite her surprise at a country that boasts of its budgets and military strength, and has an annual military budget of 3.45 billion dollars, begging for thousands of missiles and bombs, after ten days of fighting.

At the regional level, the large political gap between the United States and Israel is evident. The United States does not consider what happened on October 7 to be a disaster for Israel only, but rather a tectonic turning point in the structure of the Middle East. In its view, there are two axes: the first axis is prominent and effective, which is the “axis of chaos and terrorism” led by Iran, with the support of Russia, and the participation of Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis in Yemen, and the pro-Iranian militias in Syria and Iraq. The United States believes that since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, nearly two years ago, Iran has broken its isolation and resumed its nuclear program, which has brought it to a “state on the nuclear threshold.”

In parallel, Iran and Russia have formed an alliance of outcasts backed by China, whose foreign policy is a “zero-sum game” with the United States. On the other hand, and as a parallel point of gravity, the United States is trying to crystallize the “axis of moderation” under its leadership, and with the participation of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, the Emirates, and Qatar. Yesterday, Blinken stressed that regional stability is a supreme interest on which a future Palestinian state depends.

In the opinion of the United States, the most fragile and rejected society in this structure is currently in Israel, which must form with the United States a pillar of this axis that reflects the geopolitical outlook and political vision of Israel after 50 years.

Blinken will not convince Netanyahu to cooperate with the United States. Instead, he will be more convinced by the assessments he reads in Washington that when it comes to Netanyahu, there is no one to talk to.