By Afnan Wasif
The U.S. has consistently demonstrated its unwavering support for Israeli atrocities in Palestine, particularly following the October 7, 2023, offensive launched by Hamas and the subsequent assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the chief of Hamas’ political wing.
This incident has prompted the U.S. to increase its military footprint and diplomatic endeavors in the Middle East, justifying the move as necessary to deter adversaries, protect its interests and allies, and defend Israel. Despite the heavy criticism and widespread protests over the war crimes and genocide in Gaza committed by Israel, the U.S. remains committed to backing Israel.
The U.S. security partnerships can be broadly categorized into three key regions: NATO (where nuclear-armed allies like the U.S., UK, and France collaborate), the Middle East (where no nuclear powers exist), and the Indo-Pacific (India, a US ally, possesses nukes and the US adversaries – China and North Korea – have nuclear weapons). A notable distinction is that, unlike NATO and the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East lacks a nuclear power. If a nuclear power existed in this region, the dynamics would likely be significantly different.
This brings us to an intriguing comparison: if Taiwan were considered the “Israel of East Asia,” would the U.S. extend the same level of protection—political, military, and diplomatic—in the event of Chinese aggression? Unlike the Middle East, where Israel’s adversaries lack nuclear capabilities, China is a nuclear power, adding a complex layer to U.S. decision-making.
The same question applies to U.S. allies like South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines, who might question the extent of U.S. support if faced with a nuclear-armed adversary i.e. China. China, observing these developments, may opt for maintaining the status quo in case of Taiwan, leveraging it as a strategic advantage in any potential crisis with the US. This would allow China to tilt the balance of negotiations in its favor without engaging in direct conflict with the US.
In this context, the U.S. is inadvertently setting a precedent for its allies across these regions. These allies, observing the steadfast support Israel receives, might expect similar backing. However, the presence of nuclear weapons in the Indo-Pacific complicates this expectation. Nuclear capabilities undeniably influence strategic calculations and could force the U.S. to tread more cautiously in this region, testing the credibility and deterrence value of nuclear arms. It may induce [nuclear] arms proliferation among the U. S. allies in [South] East Asia.
The 2024 U.S. presidential elections will also play a critical role in shaping the future of U.S. security partnerships across these three regions. If former President Donald Trump, known for his skeptical views on traditional security alliances, returns to the White House, it could disrupt the current dynamics. His approach may lead to a reassessment of U.S. commitments, causing allies to seek security guarantees elsewhere, as highlighted by JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon’s remark that “if U.S. allies cannot rely on the U.S., they will have to look elsewhere for support.”
The U.S.’s steadfast support for Israel in the Middle East, particularly in the absence of nuclear powers, sets a complex precedent for its allies in the Indo-Pacific, where nuclear dynamics significantly impact strategic decisions. The upcoming U.S. elections will further influence these alliances and security partnerships, inevitably leading to a global shift, depending on the outcome.
The author is a student of Strategic Studies at National Defence University, Islamabad. He tweets @afnanwasif
