Contrasting Strategic Cultures Drive U.S.-Israel Split on Iran

Contrasting Strategic Cultures Drive U.S.-Israel Split on Iran
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry holds a meeting with Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif over Iran’s nuclear program, Lausanne, Switzerland, March 18, 2015 (AP photo by Brian Snyder).

As the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program careen toward the finish line, tensions between U.S President Barack Obama’s administration and Israel remain high. The inability of the United States and Israel to reconcile their positions is not, as some critics contend, the result of Obama’s wavering commitment to Israel’s defense, but of two enduring and deep peculiarities of U.S. strategy: first, its expansiveness, and second, America’s uniquely idealistic strategic culture. These shape not only U.S. cooperation with Israel but also U.S. security partnerships around the world.

Unlike Israel, the U.S. has far-ranging, interconnected global concerns. How the U.S. deals with Iran reverberates outside the Middle East. Done badly, the U.S. approach to Iran might advance Israel’s security while degrading American interests elsewhere in the world.

The use of military force to slow down Iran’s nuclear program is a perfect example. No American leader would want Iran to deploy nuclear weapons or even have a nuclear breakout capability. But a sustained military operation to delay Iran’s nuclear program would pull U.S. military resources away from other regions, diminishing Washington’s ability to reassure Pacific nations facing Chinese military assertiveness or Eurasian nations that may be targets of Russian aggression. It would also erode cooperation between Washington and its partners to counter violent transnational networks, particularly in Islamic nations, regardless of how hostile they might be to Iran’s regional ambitions. America’s Middle Eastern allies that are most sensitive to public opinion would find it especially difficult to continue cooperation with the U.S. after an attack on Iran, given the civilian casualties such an attack would certainly cause.

Keep reading for free!

Get instant access to the rest of this article by submitting your email address below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:

Or, Subscribe now to get full access.

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

What you’ll get with an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review:

A WPR subscription is like no other resource — it’s like having a personal curator and expert analyst of global affairs news. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • Regular in-depth articles with deep dives into important issues and countries.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.
  • The Weekly Review email, with quick summaries of the week’s most important coverage, and what’s to come.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

And all of this is available to you when you subscribe today.

More World Politics Review