US Loses Control as Israel Flexes, Pushing Middle East Peace Further Away

In the 20th century, the United States brokered two peace agreements between Israel and Arab states and nearly achieved a third decisive deal with Syria. These agreements followed years of relentless wars: the 1956 tripartite invasion, the 1967 Naksa, October 1973, the 1978 invasion of Lebanon, and the 1982 Beirut invasion.

In recent years, however, the U.S. has abandoned its role of pushing Israel toward genuine peace. Instead, Washington helped Tel Aviv use force to assert regional hegemony. The result is that now, when the U.S. seeks to achieve and sustain a peace deal, it cannot—because it cannot contain the very Israeli belligerence it has long enabled.

Historically, Israeli leaders pursued two paths. The first was the doctrine of force, laid out by Ze'ev Jabotinsky—founder of the Irgun terror organization in Palestine—in his 1923 essay 'The Iron Wall.' He wrote: 'Zionist colonisation must either be stopped or carried out in defiance of the native population. It can only proceed and develop under the protection of a force independent of the native population—behind an iron wall which they cannot break.' Prime ministers David Ben-Gurion and later Benjamin Netanyahu adopted this thinking. Netanyahu wrote that Israel must reshape the Middle East to suit its security and maintain absolute military superiority to survive.

The second path emerged after the October 1973 war, when Israel faced a near existential disaster. This was the 'survival through peace' approach, aiming for regional political and economic integration. Proponents advocated a 'land for peace' formula: Israel would return territories seized in 1967 in return for recognition and peace. This path yielded immediate results: in 1978, Israel made peace with Egypt and returned the Sinai Peninsula; in 1994, peace with Jordan, returning some lands. The Oslo Accords with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) were part of this process. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's government was reportedly ready to return the entire Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for peace, but he was assassinated in late 1995 by Zionist extremists.

Since then, Israel has gradually reverted to the 'iron wall' approach, reaching its most belligerent form today. This regression was not matched by Arab aggression. On the contrary, the Arab world offered the 2002 Beirut Arab Peace Initiative, which took into account Israel's existential fears by offering peace for land—specifically, the Golan Heights and Palestinian territories seized in 1967 for a Palestinian state. Israel never seriously considered it.

Israel's return to a belligerent path is not merely a result of domestic politics. The U.S. played a key role in encouraging this trend. By refusing to set limits on the brutal behavior of the Israeli government and military, Washington acted as if no Middle Eastern nation had legitimate interests beyond Israel's. Under President Donald Trump's two terms, this support became even more explicit, extending beyond financial aid, diplomatic protection, recognition of annexed territories, and military backing.

Reversing longstanding U.S. policy, Trump tried to bury the Palestinian issue through the Abraham Accords. These agreements sought to erase the 'land for peace' principle, replacing it with a formula of 'peace for not killing, destruction, and war.' Trump also allowed Israel to strike six Arab countries within 72 hours last year, including Qatar—home to the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command. The clearest example of how Trump served Israel's brutal agenda was the war on Iran, which benefited only Israel while undermining U.S. domestic and foreign policy interests as well as those of Arab allies.

Through these actions, the Trump administration marginalized Arab states—which had considered themselves strategic partners of the U.S. with full rights to shape the region's future—and forced them to bear the costs of reshaping the region according to Netanyahu's vision, rather than their own sovereignty, security, and stability. This militarized chaos, wrapped in 'peace and stability' rhetoric, cannot bode well for the region.

Israel's rejection of the ceasefire deal Trump reached with Iran is a clear example of the consequences of unconditional support for belligerence. Throughout the negotiations, the Israeli government repeatedly undermined efforts to end hostilities on all fronts by attacking Lebanon. And it will continue to do so, no matter how strong Trump's words in statements or phone calls with Netanyahu may be.

What Trump and his successors need to understand is that U.S. policy toward Israel must be completely reversed for genuine peace in the region. Hegemonic arrangements labeled 'peace deals,' like the Abraham Accords, will not resolve ongoing conflicts or prevent future ones. The people of the region will not accept Israel in its current expansionist form, no matter how the Abraham Accords are marketed. Opinion polls reflect this clearly: in the 2025 Arab Index survey, 87% of respondents opposed recognizing Israel and normalizing relations; 77% viewed the U.S. as a threat to regional stability.

The more the U.S. continues to support this hegemonic and belligerent version of Israel, the more it loses the region and its people. With the war on Iran reshaping security and geopolitical calculations, Washington may ultimately find itself losing control of a strategically vital region in an increasingly multipolar world. If the U.S. truly wants to maintain its position, it has only two options: either pressure Israel to transform itself and return to the 'survival through peace' path—based on a just solution to the Palestinian issue—or simply abandon this ally.