Washington’s Strategic Enabling of Greater Israel: Policy Failures and Regional Realignments

Introduction

The enduring support of the United States for Israel, particularly amidst the progressive territorial ambitions observed under the Netanyahu administration, has coincidentally contributed to the unfolding of the vision of “Greater Israel.”

This concept, rooted in expansionist Zionist ideology, aspires to territorial claims stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates.

By offering diplomatic support, advanced military resources, and strategic leverage, U.S. policies may have inadvertently empowered certain far-right factions within Israel to advance annexationist agendas in Palestine and surrounding regions, including Syria and Lebanon.

FAF examines this alignment's historical foundations, current strategies, and geopolitical implications.

The Ideological Foundations of Greater Israel

From Zionist Aspirations to Contemporary Interpretations

The notion of Greater Israel (Eretz Yisrael HaShlema) has its origins in early Zionist texts, prominently including Theodor Herzl’s 1896 manifesto, Der Judenstaat, which envisaged a Jewish homeland based on historical claims.

By 1947, Rabbi Fischmann of the Jewish Agency made a clear statement to the UN regarding Israel’s territorial aspirations, asserting rights extending from the Nile to the Euphrates. This perspective was later echoed by Revisionist Zionists like Vladimir Jabotinsky.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sought to institutionalize this vision through strategic settlement expansion and military initiatives that have reshaped the geopolitical landscape of neighboring states.

The Clean Break Doctrine and its Adoption by the U.S.

In 1996, a group of U.S. neoconservative advisors, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, introduced *A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm* during Netanyahu’s initial term.

This document advocated for Israel to shift away from peace negotiations and consider preemptive military actions against regional adversaries, thereby promoting a more unstable environment to redefine the Middle East.

Although initially met with skepticism, many of the architects of this strategy later assumed key positions within the Pentagon under President George W. Bush, influencing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and framing regime change as a collaborative goal between the U.S. and Israel.

Washington’s Role

Aid, Diplomacy, and Strategic Insight

Unconditional Military Support

As of 2023, the U.S. has authorized over $4 billion in emergency military assistance to Israel, which includes substantial quantities of advanced ordinance, such as 35,000 Mark 84 2,000-pound bombs—munitions that have been predominantly utilized in urban settings within Gaza.

Despite calls from various sectors for restraint, the Biden administration has expedited the provision of F-35 fighter jets and precision-guided munitions, thereby facilitating Israel’s military operations in southern Lebanon and Syria’s Dara’a governorate.

This ongoing support continues in light of concerns surrounding the IDF's documented use of U.S.-supplied white phosphorus in populated areas, which raises significant questions regarding adherence to international humanitarian law.

Diplomatic Shield at the United Nations

In recent months, the United States has exercised its veto power on four occasions concerning UN Security Council resolutions that aimed to address Israel’s settlement expansions and the blockade of Gaza, including proposals for investigating potential violations of international law.

This stance has led to a growing global perception of isolation for the U.S. Notably, in March 2025, a significant majority of 153 nations voted to recognize Palestine as a full member of the United Nations, with only the U.S. and Israel opposing this resolution.

Such diplomatic decisions have raised concerns about America’s moral standing, particularly regarding Israel’s actions in the Philadelphia Corridor, which many view as a breach of the principles established in the 1978 Camp David Accords.

Territorial Consolidation

From Palestine to the Levant

Gaza as a Focus of Concern

The ongoing military operations in Gaza from 2023 to 2025 have resulted in substantial displacement, with approximately 85% of the enclave's 2.3 million residents affected and a significant portion of the housing and agricultural resources impacted by conflict-related damage.

Concurrently, the Israeli government has approved the construction of new settlement units in the West Bank. This move raises concerns regarding the viability of future peace efforts and the region's stability.

These developments align with some officials' calls for substantial changes by 2030, which have garnered attention and concern, particularly in light of the U.S.’s current approach to addressing settler violence.

Northern Fronts: Lebanon and Syria

Israel’s 2024 withdrawal from the Lebanon-Israel ceasefire agreement has led to territorial changes that include the acquisition of strategic border villages.

This, alongside military actions targeting Hezbollah’s capabilities, reflects a broader strategy that reinterprets existing agreements amid regional instability.

In Syria, Israeli military operations have advanced into contested areas under the guise of security measures, effectively creating zones that alter the region's governance landscape. These actions bring to mind prior strategic frameworks that seek to reshape borders through military involvement.

The Implications of Expansionism

Humanitarian Concerns and Diplomatic Isolation

The current situation in Gaza, characterized by severe humanitarian challenges—including high levels of water contamination and food insecurity—has prompted significant international concern, with discussions of potential accountability for violations of human rights taking precedence.

There is recognition among some U.S. officials of serious issues that warrant attention.

Furthermore, traditional U.S. allies in the region, such as Egypt and Jordan, are experiencing their own domestic challenges due to perceived complicity in these matters, potentially compromising longstanding partnerships.

Fortifying the Sino-Russian Axis

China's involvement in mediating discussions between Israel and Palestine in 2024, although initially symbolic, highlights concerns over the U.S.’s role as an impartial broker.

Simultaneously, Russia has enhanced its military cooperation with key regional players, positioning itself to counter U.S. influence in the Arab world. 

Pathways to Accountability and Engagement

Promoting Constructive Diplomacy

To foster a more stable and equitable solution, the U.S. is encouraged to consider several policy adjustments:

Suspending Offensive Arms Transfers

The U.S. might consider temporarily halting arms transfers to Israel until compliance with international legal frameworks regarding Gaza is observed.

Upholding the Leahy Law

There could be a focus on ensuring that U.S. assistance is not provided to military units engaged in documented human rights abuses.

Supporting Palestinian Statehood

Ending vetoes against initiatives for Palestinian statehood, in line with regional initiatives such as the 2024 Arab Peace Initiative, could reaffirm commitments to a two-state solution.

Engaging in Regional Cooperation

Re-evaluating Relations with Syria

Exploring diplomatic engagement with the Syrian government may present opportunities for stability in Southern Syria and mitigate ongoing tensions.

Empowering Palestinian Institutions

Redirecting military aid to support Palestinian governance and infrastructure development could promote long-term peace, contingent on advancements toward disarmament.

Conclusion

A Call for Balanced Engagement

The U.S. support for Israel, while historically significant, may require reassessment to align more closely with contemporary democratic values and international norms.

Addressing the humanitarian needs of Gaza while respecting Israel's right to security is critical to fostering a negotiated resolution and enhancing U.S. leadership among its allies. 

Navigating this complex landscape will necessitate a nuanced understanding of the distinction between security interests and territorial expansionism. This composure is vital for the future well-being of both nations.