Introduction

From 2015 to 2020, I served as a Senate member of the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) because of my strong Zionist beliefs. During that time, I believed the close U.S.-Israel alliance benefited both nations. Israel has long been one of America’s closest partners in the Middle East, cooperating extensively with the United States in intelligence sharing, counterterrorism, missile defense, cybersecurity, and military technology. This partnership has provided significant benefits and should continue where it directly advances American interests.

The war in Gaza and Israel’s settlement policy in the West Bank have complicated America’s regional position. To preserve its influence, the United States should broaden its strategic relationships rather than relying primarily on Israel.

The first responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the security, prosperity, and constitutional interests of the American people. Alliances, foreign aid, military commitments, and diplomacy should be judged by whether they serve American national interests rather than ideological commitments or open-ended international obligations.

A Rebalancing Strategy

The United States should reduce its exceptional relationship with Israel without ending normal diplomatic, commercial, intelligence, or security ties. Israel should remain an important partner, but American Middle East policy should no longer revolve primarily around it. This transition should occur gradually to avoid destabilizing the region or encouraging hostile powers.

Washington should replace automatic support with conditional cooperation. Military aid and diplomatic backing should depend on whether Israeli policies advance U.S. interests, comply with American law, minimize civilian harm, and contribute to regional stability. Grant-based military assistance should gradually be reduced, with some assistance replaced by conventional arms sales and joint research agreements. The United States should also require greater accountability for American weapons while continuing intelligence sharing, missile-defense research, cybersecurity cooperation, and counterterrorism coordination.

Diversifying Regional Partnerships

America should strengthen relations with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

Egypt occupies a unique strategic position. It controls the Suez Canal, borders Gaza, maintains peace with Israel, and exerts influence throughout the Arab world and Africa. The United States should expand cooperation on Suez Canal and Red Sea security, Gaza ceasefire negotiations, reconstruction, and diplomacy concerning Sudan and Libya. Washington must also recognize Egypt’s political and economic vulnerabilities, including continuing support for the Muslim Brotherhood among portions of its population.

Saudi Arabia remains important because of its influence in global energy markets, financial resources, Islamic religious leadership, and Gulf security. Cooperation should include energy-market coordination, joint efforts against missile, drone, and terrorist threats, and limiting excessive Chinese and Russian influence. However, this relationship should remain transactional rather than becoming another open-ended American security guarantee.

Turkey also deserves renewed attention despite political disagreements with Washington. As a NATO member with one of the alliance’s largest armed forces, it occupies a strategic position linking Europe, the Black Sea, the Caucasus, and the Middle East. A limited reset should emphasize NATO defense planning, Black Sea and Mediterranean security, defense-industrial cooperation, management of disputes over Syria and Kurdish groups, and restrictions on incompatible Russian defense systems.

A Regional Security Framework

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey cannot fully replace Israel. Since 1967, Israel has been a dependable American ally, whereas the others frequently pursue interests that conflict with those of the United States and with one another.

A stronger long-term approach would establish a regional security council composed of the United States, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and the Gulf states. This organization could coordinate air and missile defense, counterterrorism intelligence, maritime security, energy and trade corridors, and crisis communications. Israel would remain an important participant without occupying an exclusive position.

Advantages and Risks

A more balanced policy could improve America’s credibility among Arab and Muslim populations while strengthening Washington’s ability to mediate regional disputes. Broader partnerships would expand U.S. influence through Egypt’s access to North Africa and the Suez Canal, Saudi Arabia’s Gulf leadership and financial resources, and Turkey’s NATO capabilities and Black Sea access. Maintaining multiple strategic relationships would reduce dependence on any single partner, lessen the risk of unnecessary military entanglements, and provide greater diplomatic leverage.

Rebalancing also carries risks. The United States could lose valuable Israeli intelligence, cybersecurity, and military cooperation. Israel might act more independently if it doubts American support, particularly regarding Iran, while regional adversaries could interpret reduced U.S. backing as an opportunity to increase pressure on Israel. At the same time, the United States should make clear that Iran must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons capability.

The alternative partners also present challenges. Egypt faces political and economic instability, Saudi Arabia often acts according to its own strategic priorities, and Turkey frequently disagrees with Washington over Russia, Syria, Kurdish groups, and the eastern Mediterranean. These countries also compete with one another, potentially forcing the United States to mediate disputes. Weakening U.S.-Israeli ties without careful coordination could also undermine the Egyptian-Israeli peace framework established in 1979.

Conclusion

The strongest policy is rebalancing, not abandoning Israel. The United States should gradually transform its relationship with Israel from exceptional and heavily subsidized to normal, conditional, and interest-based while simultaneously strengthening partnerships with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey according to what each can realistically contribute.

This strategy would provide Washington with greater flexibility while avoiding overdependence on any single regional partner. Because none of these countries can fully replace Israel’s military and technological capabilities, the United States must remain independent of all four rather than exchanging one special relationship for another. Such an approach would better protect American national interests while strengthening regional stability while requiring fewer direct military commitments than large-scale American intervention.

Doc appreciates and welcomes your thoughtful comments and constructive responses to ernestwerlin@gmail.com.