A rift in the U.S.-Israel special relationship

(This article is part of the View From India newsletter curated by The Hindu’s foreign affairs experts. To get the newsletter in your inbox every Monday, subscribe here.)

“Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time,” U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance said on June 18 in an unusual direct rebuke to the Israeli critics of the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding. “If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world,” he said, adding: “The other thing that I would say is that over the last three months, two-thirds of the defensive weapons that have protected your homeland have been built by American hands and paid for by American tax dollars.”

In an interview, Mr. Vance, who had reportedly opposed the U.S.-led war on Iran, said Israel “cannot kill its way out of every security challenge” it is facing. In a different podcast, he criticised Israeli advocates for conflating criticism of the state of Israel to antisemitism. “If everything is Jew-hatred, then nothing is Jew-hatred,” he said. In the same interview, he said President Trump has “some disagreements” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on how to bring the war to an end. “They’re a good partner in the same way that the United Kingdom or France are good partners -- that doesn’t mean that we’re always going to have aligned interests,” he added.

Mr. Trump was more measured in his criticism, but, while speaking to reporters in France, he also raised some uncomfortable questions about Israel’s conduct of the war in Lebanon. “You don’t have to knock down an apartment house every time you’re looking for somebody,” Mr. Trump said about Israeli attacks on Lebanon’s civilian areas. “There are a lot of people in those apartment houses. And they’re not all Hezbollah.” He also said Israel was fighting Hezbollah “too long” and “too many people have been killed”. In the recent past, Axios had reported that Trump had angry phone calls with Mr. Netanyahu in which he used expletives to slam Israel’s bombing of Lebanon.

The public criticisms from America’s top leadership about its “special ally” point to a growing rift between the two countries over the Iran question. And the criticism became public only after the MoU was reached between the U.S. and Iran on June 15. The main reason for the rift is the disagreement between Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu on how to end the war on Iran. Israel would not prefer a diplomatic settlement that would lift sanctions on Iran and leave the country conventionally more powerful in West Asia. But the U.S., having failed to meet its objectives through 40 days of bombing, wants to end the conflict, remove the bottleneck in the Strait of Hormuz that has held the global economy for ransom, and address the nuclear question diplomatically.

There are three important factors that are driving this rift. The first is public opinion in America. The war on Iran is unpopular in the U.S. and the economic costs of the war are rising. Mi-term primaries will begin shortly and Mr. Trump wants to extricate himself from the war at the soonest. In the U.S., the public opinion about Israel is also undergoing a transformation. According to a February Gallup poll, for the first time in over two decades, Americans are no longer more sympathetic towards Israelis than Palestinians: 41% Americans now sympathise with Palestinians, while 36% sympathise with Israelis. According to a recent Pew research poll,60% of U.S. adults have an unfavourable view of Israel, while 59% have little or no confidence in Mr. Netanyahu.

The second factor is that sections of Mr. Trump’s MAGA base have started revolting against the war on Iran and America’s ties with Israel. Popular conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson has emerged the champion of this revolt. They argue that Mr. Netanyahu led Mr. Trump into the war on Iran—or that the U.S. was fighting this war on behalf of “a foreign power”. They ask Mr. Trump to put American interests first and leave the war with Iran.

The third factor is Lebanon. The very first clause of the memorandum of understanding states that the ceasefire should come into force on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also calls for ensuring Lebanon’s “territorial integrity and sovereignty”--meaning Israeli troops should pull back from Lebanon. Both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Israel Katz have said the Israeli troops will not withdraw from southern Lebanon. This keeps Lebanon as a flashpoint with a potential for escalation. Mr. Netanyahu seems determined to use the Lebanon card, making the U.S.-Iran peace process complicated. Iran, which has started direct talks with the U.S., has said that it had closed the ‘Strait of Hormuz’ in response to Israel’s attacks on Lebanon. So if Mr. Trump wants a successful final agreement with Iran, he should find a way to rein in Mr. Netanyahu or even force him to withdraw troops from Lebanon. Israel’s unrelenting attacks on Lebanon, which has complicated the peace process, has deepened the frustration in the White House.

To understand the U.S.-Iran deal and its implications for West Asia, see this explainer in The Hindu FAQ: What does the U.S.-Iran agreement say? | Explained

The Top Five

1. Group of Seven | A platform for the globalised elite

The grouping of industrialised nations, founded in the 1970s, has weathered major geopolitical storms across the 20th and 21st centuries to remain a key forum for discussions and decision-making on global conflicts and economic challenges, writes Kallol Bhattacherjee.

2. Telegram | Mass messaging and more

The ‘WhatsApp alternative’ with a strong commitment to user privacy, which has over 15 crore users in India, is facing a week-long ban in the country, writes Aroon Deep.

3. EU passes law allowing offshore deportation centres

The Return Regulation approves the deportation of irregular immigrants to third-party countries; states can now form agreements with non-EU countries and set up deportation centres there; even as European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen hailed the law as ‘fair and firm’, critics say it has ‘little regard for people’s safety, dignity and rights, and fails to uphold the EU’s fundamental values’, writes Joan Sony Cherian.

4. How Herat defied the Taliban regime, chanting ‘women, work and freedom’

The protests in the Afghan city in the first week of June were triggered by the enforcement of a dress code, which requires women to wear burqa in public; many women, including those wearing traditional Afghan wear of manto, were arrested, but released later as entire communities protested, writes Smriti Sudesh.

5. Britain after Brexit, divided, uncertain and stagnant

Ten years after Brexit, Britain still searches for direction, writes Priyanjali Malik.