Israel’s Seven Front War: Global Power Struggles

As Israel faces an existential war—the head of the snake, the Ayatollah, and his Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Quds Force—together with its Hezbollah-Hamas-Houthis-Syrian and Iraqi-militia backed Axis of Resistance (AOR), it must also contend with a broader geopolitical landscape shaped by the AOR, but also by the AOR as backed by China, Russia, and the United Nations (UN). There is a system dynamic at play with dangerous feedback loops.

Russia and China Joining with an AOR Post Iran’s Oil-Export Recovery

Russia and China are backing an AOR post Iran’s oil-export recovery—not an AOR forced to rely on oil smuggling and covert sales.

Regardless of whether this administration gambled that its close monitoring would be circumvented, and that the influx of oil revenues would be diverted to strengthen the AOR’s  capacity to buy and produce arms, it nonetheless coincided with a resurgence in missile and drone technologies, as well as military expansion, including more aggressive, large-scale operations.

Against this backdrop, the AOR now also receives backing from China and Russia—and political backing from the UN’s double standard applied to Israel, which normalizes campaigns to erode Israeli sovereignty and sideline its security. In this context, the debate over conditioning U.S. aid is not only about aligning Israeli actions within broader U.S. foreign policy goals—or even whether it can actually be safeguarded from political abuse in such a polarized environment—but about emboldening the AOR, China, Russia, and the UN. We cannot dismiss the UN as persona non grata without also developing an approach to counter it from continuing to embed antisemitism into the customary norms of international law.

Conditioning Aid Discussions and the Rise of Multipolarity

We must consider the broader context in which Israel is being both pressured to refrain from trying to actually defeat the enemy, lulled to maximally absorb both direct and indirect attacks from the AOR and respond only defensively, strike-by-strike. Not only is it dangerous to fight Hamas or Hezbollah without bearing in mind that they are the AOR’s relatively less valuable “pieces” on the board compared with the Ayatollah, the IRGC, and Quds Force, but we must also go one step further and consider Chinese and Russian influences, such as China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) that provides an economic lifeline to the AOR, and Russia’s  military foothold in Syria that offers it strategic depth.

America may need to strengthen alliances with Gulf states, like Saudi Arabia to counter the emerging threat, at the same time factions favor re-engaging with Tehran, trying to weaken American resolve to counter the AOR, Moscow, and Beijing.

U.S. Foreign Policy Shifts and the Strategic Dilemma for Israel

In this rapidly evolving geopolitical context, Israel faces a crucial decision: whether to temporarily secure its borders or actively attempt to defeat the AOR.

Therefore, the debate over conditioning U.S. aid becomes more pressing, as does the overall health of the U.S.-Israeli alliance. While shifts in U.S. foreign policy may typically take decades to translate into concrete political change, the urgency of Israel’s strategic situation makes this debate immediate.

There is a growing fear among Israeli policymakers and supporters of Zionism that President Biden may be the last Democratic president sincerely aligned with the movement. Even within his administration, there have been signs of operational pressure on Israel during critical military engagements. For example, Biden’s recent pushback on Israel’s offensive against Hezbollah was not an isolated instance. Earlier, he attempted to override Israel’s operational command during the campaign in Gaza, stating, “If they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons. Period.”

This intervention, along with other actions, reflects a growing disconnect between Israel and the U.S., where military decisions are increasingly subject to U.S. political constraints. The feedback loop created here is one where U.S. pressure limits Israel’s ability to act decisively, emboldening its enemies and reinforcing external interference in Israeli military strategy.

Diplomatic and Operational Pressures: The Rafah Example

During critical military engagements, Israel has faced not only external threats from the AOR, but also significant diplomatic and operational pressures from its closest ally. Vice President Harris, after studying the maps, declared that the Rafah operation would be a “huge mistake” according to the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC). The administration’s intervention, combined with delays in shipments of critical weapons, such as 2,000-pound bombs, caused enough friction for Israel to risk surfacing the issue diplomatically. Israel may have used a number of these bomb variants to eliminate Nasrallah, but its focus on Nasrallah could only come after securing the southern border.

Rafah—a critical hub for weapons smuggling and the last stronghold of Hamas—exemplifies how military operations could have been severely hindered by political pressure, even from close allies. Had Bibi not resisted this external pressure and insisted on controlling Rafah to cut off weapons flowing through the Philadelphia Corridor, the outcome could have been drastically different. Delays in critical weapons and pressure not only prolong the campaign, but also reduce pressure on enemy forces, posing greater risks to Israeli soldiers while hampering efforts to swiftly release hostages. This ongoing cycle of delays and interference creates a feedback loop, where military actions are stifled by political pressures, undermining Israel’s ability to act decisively.

Strategic Friction: The Role of Conditional Aid in Emboldening China and Russia

The Rafah operation serves as a key example of how friction between Israel and its allies, combined with the fear of conditional aid, emboldens global powers, like China and Russia. While Israel once enjoyed pragmatic relationships with both nations—whether through military, economic, or diplomatic channels—these ties have been increasingly sidelined as China and Russia pursue challenging American influence in the region.  Israel’s efforts to balance its regional security needs with international political pressures only further complicate its position.

The AOR, bolstered by China and Russia, is aware of Israel’s strategic limitations. If the AOR senses that Israel is not fully determined to exercise its rights per LOAC to aggressively pursue victory, it will take advantage, further emboldening China and Russia. This hesitancy risks giving the AOR a military advantage that would prolong endangering and harming Israelis.  From Israel’s perspective, the issue is not only a matter of legal rights under LOAC, which grants it the ability to launch offensive operations in a just war, but also one of moral duty. Israel has a responsibility to protect its citizens by ensuring a swift and decisive victory, forcing the enemy to surrender as quickly as possible. Reducing the overall harm caused by prolonged fighting often means being more aggressive in the short term, especially when humanitarian goals are best achieved by swiftly restoring peace and security.

Virtue Signaling, Antisemitism, and the Double Standard

As China and Russia continue to support the AOR, Israel’s right to go on the offense becomes even more critical. This economic and military backing from global powers not only strengthens the AOR’s military capacity, but also reinforces the political and diplomatic challenges Israel faces in the UN, where China and Russia provide cover for the AOR’s actions.

China and Russia’s support, both on the ground and within the UN, places immense pressure on Israel to act swiftly before the AOR regroups and drags the war out for years. The longer this war persists, the more Israeli sovereignty—guaranteed by the San Remo Resolution, a legal commitment to a Jewish national home in the land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria—becomes imperiled even though it is supposed to be preserved under Article 80 of the UN Charter.  The stakes are high. Israel not only faces the AOR military threat, but also a growing diplomatic challenge in actually retaining ironclad support from its closest ally.

Israel must ensure it acts while it still can, as the U.S.’s fierce determination to back Israel is never consistently guaranteed, especially if antisemitism continues to spread. Erosion of unconditional support—due to political divisions or changing global priorities—puts Israel in a vulnerable position.

Erosion of American Resolve: Double Standard Against Israel

There are numerous signs that American resolve is weakening. Beyond the debate over conditional aid, an increasing number of American leaders seem more willing to normalize double standards regarding Israel, influenced in part by pressure from the UN. This reluctance to fully back Israel is mirrored by the UN, which adopts it as a new minimum threshold, further reinforcing its entrenched biases.

What began as Israel’s willingness to sacrifice some of its sovereignty in pursuit of peace has now been misinterpreted as a just entitlement. For example, the division of Ottoman territories was accepted by the Arab world as the foundation for creating modern states—such as Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Yet, when it comes to Israel, establishing its state on even 17% of the land legally designated to them under the San Remo Resolution became a pretext for invasions and attacks by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and others.

Even today, the U.S. administration labels certain Israelis as “extremists” for refusing to relinquish further sovereignty in pursuit of an uncertain peace. Yet, the salami-tactic—the gradual erosion of Israel’s sovereignty through piecemeal concessions—can only go so far. The pretense of diplomacy can no longer mask what has become legal warfare. Continuing to pursue the same failed policies that have led to repeated cycles of violence, all while expecting different results, is insanity.

Comparison with U.S. Domestic Policy

It is particularly striking when juxtaposing this administration’s strong support for Palestinian Arab statehood in Israel with its approach to Indigenous sovereignty in the United States. Harris has not been a leading advocate for significantly expanding sovereignty or radically altering the relationship between Indigenous nations and her home state of California. This inconsistency reflects a double standard in the administration’s broader vision of self-determination.

 Support for Palestinian Arab Rights

Incidentally, my view should not be construed as inconsistent in any way with my passionate belief that every person, including all Palestinian Arabs, has the inherent right to life, dignity, and personal freedom, regardless of ethnicity or nationality. In Israel, Palestinian Arabs should be entitled to the same minority rights as other citizens. Palestinian Arabs who remained in the territory after the establishment of Israel in 1948 are, and should be, entitled to full Israeli citizenship. After Israel was attacked in 1967, Palestinian Arab residents of East Jerusalem were offered permanent residency status and the option to apply for Israeli citizenship, though many choose not to do so because they do not want to recognize Israeli sovereignty as a result of the war.

These rights should be further expanded by those primarily responsible for the chaos of war—all Arab countries that attacked Israel and continue to evade their responsibility.

Dangerous Feedback Loop and the Role of the UN

Meanwhile, the UN remains far from systematically debiased. The AOR is not shifting to traditional battlefields, and the continued undermining of Israel’s legal sovereignty has created a dangerous feedback-loop. Factions within the U.S. that pressure the administration to amplify the UN’s bias against Israel only reinforce that bias, placing increasing pressure on Israel to cede sovereignty in exchange for fragile ceasefires.

One stark example of this double standard is Vice President Harris’s concern that “far too many civilians have been killed.” Although likely well-intentioned, Harris’s comments implicitly shift the blame onto Israel rather than the AOR, by urging even greater precision from Israel. This pressure is then weaponized by the UN, which further pushes the narrative that Israel must surrender its sovereignty in exchange for peace.

Moreover, investigations into military actions, particularly concerning whether they violate the LOAC, typically take years. For instance, U.S. military operations in Raqqa and Mosul have faced continuous scrutiny since they occurred between 2016 and 2017, with investigations stretching well into 2023. Despite U.S. actions in Raqqa and Mosul being subject to years of scrutiny, Harris swiftly judged that Israel must do more.

Another Double Standard in Civilian Protection Advocacy  

There is substantial evidence suggesting that Israel has taken extraordinary measures to warn civilians and minimize casualties—arguably more than the U.S. military did during operations in Raqqa and Mosul. Israel’s longstanding use of precision-guided munitions, along with warnings sent via text messages, leaflets, and even the practice of “rooftop knocks” (non-lethal warnings delivered to buildings targeted for airstrikes), demonstrates a commitment to protecting civilians in urban warfare. In contrast, the U.S. military’s alleged use of unguided artillery in densely populated areas during the Battle of Mosul resulted in thousands of civilian casualties. Yet, Vice President Harris made no public statements or appearances during her time in the Senate to criticize these U.S. actions.

The media framing by Harris risks reinforcing the very double standard that the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) defines as antisemitism, which includes “applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”  While her concerns about civilian casualties may be well-intentioned, Harris’s approach has effectively held Israel to a higher standard of precision and accountability than her own country. By focusing on Israel’s military actions, rather than holding the U.S. to the same scrutiny, she risks setting a dangerous precedent in international diplomacy.

There are other ways though that she and others reinforce dangerous feedback-loops with the UN. By repeatedly emphasizing Israel’s right to self-defense, but simultaneously undermining Israel’s legal rights to fight both defensively and offensively under LOAC, Harris’s comments signal that it is acceptable for Israel’s allies to apply unbalanced scrutiny. This modeling of holding Israel to a higher standard sends a message to the UN and other international actors that they can use good-faith arguments as a pretext to impose a double standard on Israel.

By doing so, Israel’s allies effectively attempt to restrict Israel’s right to fight its enemies on equal legal and moral grounds to only self-defense. What’s more though, these feedback loops embolden the AOR, particularly when they are now being backed by China and Russia.

Considering the Implications of the U.S. Elections

While the Republican Party’s pro-Israel stance remains robust—supported by Evangelicals, defense hawks, and neoconservatives—there is a growing isolationist wing within the GOP that prioritizes domestic issues over foreign commitments. If this isolationist sentiment gains momentum, it could pose long-term risks for Israel’s security.

However, the GOP’s institutional support for Israel is likely to act as a counterbalance, preventing any drastic shifts in foreign policy.  Additionally, within Trump’s base, there are factions that may tolerate an erosion of democratic norms, which could also threaten Israel’s long-term security interests. But the non-fringe elements of Trump’s base and the fact that it is not populism itself but the specific type of populism that could affect Israel mitigates some of these risks. The institutional structure of American democracy serves as a safeguard, preventing any sudden or extreme changes in the U.S.-Israel relationship.

On the Democratic side, the internal divisions pose a potential threat to Israel’s long-term security interests. This situation is reminiscent of the Weimar Republic, where the Jewish left trusted the Social Democratic Party and its progressive values, found that their base was not strong enough to unite with the Communist Party to fight rising radical factions. However, while progressives haven’t overtaken the Dem, and Jewish voters and pro-Israel donors remain influential, the rise of anti-Israel factions is a concern. Future U.S. support for Israel remains increasingly uncertain—whether due to the isolationist wing within the GOP or the anti-Israel factions within the Dem.

Israel’s long-term security therefore depends on maintaining bipartisan backing in Washington, regardless of internal political shifts in the U.S. As both the U.S. and Israel face internal pressures, maintaining consistent foreign policy and trusting in democratic institutions will be essential for restoring stability and security. For example, both the United States and Israel must strive to accept that when the U.S. president or Israeli prime minister speaks, they are speaking as the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations; neither side should stonewall the other.

Conclusion

On a more optimistic note, our repentance, prayer, and charity will unite us this Yom Kippur. Every act of ma’aser kesafim, every expression of Jewish unity (and avoiding the othering of those with differing views), every defense of Israel’s sovereignty—even if it is just being careful in how we engage politically— contributes to the material rebuilding and protection of Israel until our complete redemption. We have been given a gift to counter these negative forces quickly. We can create new positive feedback-loops more powerful than these forces that will transform the entire world into a place of loving-kindness, where God’s presence can dwell.