US strategy in Gaza is driven by self-interest, not just Israel

Few were surprised this week when United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken said he would not follow through with a threat to withhold military aid to Israel for continuing to starve Palestinians in Gaza.

US President Joe Biden's administration had sent Israel a letter in October, giving it 30 days to take 16 concrete steps in Gaza, including allowing at least 350 aid trucks per day into the enclave.

According to the US's own findings and aid organisations, Israel has not taken any of those steps (an average of 42 trucks per day were let into Gaza over the past month). And it will continue to face no repercussions.

Many assume that the Israeli Lobby and Christian Zionism shape United States policy on Palestine and Israel. While both these groups exert considerable influence, this perspective alone cannot explain why US leaders are willing to violate both domestic and international laws while aiding and abetting Israel.

This includes the Leahy Law, which prohibits the US government from providing assistance to governments whose militaries are committing gross violations of human rights. Supporting Israel militarily also possibly violates international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, the Genocide Convention, and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

So why would the US then choose to support and facilitate a genocide in Gaza that contravenes numerous legal standards?

The answer lies in US policymakers' belief that such actions serve American geostrategic interests. From this perspective, it is not only Israel pressuring the US into supporting its actions in Palestine and the Middle East.

Rather, the US uses Israel as a proxy to advance its own goals. In this sense, the ongoing violence in Gaza is driven by US interests, with Israel acting as a willing enforcer.

Billions in support

A study on US spending in the Gaza conflict since October 7, 2023 estimated the total expenditure to be around $22.76 billion, including $17.9 billion in military aid and security assistance.

The Costs of War Project, commissioned by the Watson Institute for International & Public Affairs, part of Brown University, also stated that $4.86 billion went toward direct US military operations in the region, mainly focused on Yemen.

Given the scale of this financial commitment, it's clear that this devastating genocide in Gaza is a war actively supported by the United States. This is true even while factoring in established influences on US policy and President Joe Biden's stated support for Zionism.

Military engagement often boosts the US economy, particularly benefiting domestic industries.

For instance, a significant portion of US military aid to Israel is funnelled back into American companies, as these funds are required to be spent on US-made equipment. The same scheme applies to US aid to Ukraine – most of the money is kept in the country. This setup effectively serves as a subsidy for US defence contractors.

In an election year, incumbents may leverage such policies to strengthen the economy, potentially enhancing re-election prospects.

Direct engagement

The Biden administration's decision to engage directly in the ongoing violence in Gaza can be explained by looking at the consistent trajectory of US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Many believe that the Greater Middle East Initiative, proposed after the 2003 Iraq invasion, ended when former president Barack Obama took office. However, the initiative's core objectives for reshaping the region largely persisted under Obama, with one notable change: he set aside democratisation as a strategic goal.

This shift was evident when, after the early success of the Arab Spring, Obama effectively supported Abdel Fattah El-Sisi's coup in Egypt by refraining from labelling it as such. Political analyst Shadi Hamid noted last month that Obama often remarked that all he really needed in the Middle East was "a few smart autocrats."

Following the disastrous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the plan was slowed down. But the Arab Spring presented an opportunity for the US and its ally Israel to continue dismantling and destabilising governments opposed to their interests.

Egypt's leadership was changed, while Libya, Syria, and Yemen experienced intense destabilisation and fragmentation. Obama's infamous "red line" on chemical weapons in Syria was never honoured. Instead, it was his most significant foreign policy failure, and it provided motivation for false-flag operations.

These post-Arab Spring shifts paved the way for the Abraham Accords, a normalisation process between Israel and several Arab states that effectively cut out Palestinians. By 2018, former president (and president-elect) Donald Trump relocated the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After Biden took office, this policy direction remained unchallenged.

Later, Sudan faced a horrible civil war and fragmentation. As of the end of October 2024, more than 11 million people have been displaced from their homes in Sudan, making it one of the largest such displacements in recent memory.

Back to Palestine

Now, the focus turns to Palestine. The Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023, have offered an opening for US and Israeli policymakers to advance their strategy.

The goal is to eliminate a large number of Palestinians and confine the rest to heavily monitored areas, which former CIA director General David Petraeus likened to "gated communities." This approach recalls the strategy used by American colonists: first genocide, then reservations.

How many killed Palestinians are enough? Prior to the election, former president Bill Clinton provided a window into that thinking by indicating that there was no upper limit. No condemnation from Harris's campaign was released following Clinton's statement.

Thus, US foreign policy in the Middle East appears mainly impervious to the shifting political tides that accompany changes in party control of the White House or Congress.

As we look ahead to a Trump presidency in which many pro-Zionist war hawks are already expected to take leadership roles, we will likely see a continuation of these established policies.

In the annals of future historical accounts, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are likely to be remembered as pivotal figures who had a crucial opportunity to intervene in the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

Their administration, instead of taking decisive action to prevent the escalating violence and humanitarian disaster, chose a path of complicity, directly supporting policies that contributed to the suffering of countless civilians. When future historians reflect on this era, they will conclude that Biden and Harris were on the wrong side of history.

Meanwhile, Trump's presidency will most likely lead to Israel's annexation of large swaths of Gaza and the West Bank. Whether by displacing people to reclaim their land (creating facts on the ground) or by providing direct support for the creation of Greater Israel, US policy shows a remarkable consistency regardless of the president's party affiliation.