It was not so long ago when analysts spoke of an ‘enduring’ US-Israel alliance and its impact on the Middle Eastern politics. There was a time when the US itself spoke of and ‘believed’ in shared values and unprecedented alliance, not to mention $3 billion in annual US aid given to the ‘best-friend nation’. It was considered to be a bond so close that many in both nations envisioned Israel as the 51st State of United States of America. However, it has once again been proved that alliances and friendships at inter-state level are never permanent, nor are alliances based upon moral principles. The ultimate foundation for an alliance, as is evident from numerous geo-political fluctuations, is provided by mutual interests. As long as the states’ interests converge, alliance remains intact; as soon as interests diverge, alliances fall apart. The case of US-Israel rift, in the present context, strengthens this proposition and allows us to look beyond the mantra of the concept of “all weathers” friendships.

The current phase of friction between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to surface during Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. In his 60 Minutes interview in September that year, Obama shrugged off Israeli pressure as meaningless when it came to the protections, enhancement and materialization of US national interest. When asked if Netanyahu was pressuring him to make up his mind to use military force in Iran, Obama replied: “When it comes to our national security decisions, any pressure that I feel is simply to do what’s right for the American people. And I am going to block out any noise that’s out there.” Obama’s remarks reflected new, profound realities in the Middle East against which the US—at least as viewed by a growing faction in the American establishment, mainly Democrats—would no longer unconditionally support Israel, nor would Israel be allowed to figure prominently in the US foreign policy priorities or, more specifically in deciding how to deal with Iran; and this has become quite evident during the last two months or so.

There is no doubt that the US- Israel relations have dropped to historic lows in recent months, largely because of disagreement over a nuclear deal with Iran that the US and other world powers were in process of making. The tensions swelled at the conclusion of Israel’s election due to Mr. Netanyahu’s statements about Palestinian statehood and Arab Israeli voters. The extent of rift can be gauged from a report published by The Wall Street Journal. The report revealed that Israeli officials had spied on the closed-door Iran talks and passed some of the information on to US lawmakers in order to exert pressure on the US Government. While the Israeli Government denied the claims made in this report, current and former Israeli officials told the Journal that the country’s intelligence agencies regularly sweep up communications between the US officials and parties targeted by the Israelis, including Iran, allowing Israel to piece together the US’ position in the nuclear talks and then use this information to mobilize political support within and outside US Congress and establishment.

The US, on the other hand, has been deliberately highlighting, as a tactic to put Israel under pressure, the need for resolving the Palestine problem by creating a Palestinian State in the Middle East. For instance, in March, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough brought a strong message to an American pro-Israel conference, telling a crowd of 3,000 attendees that “an occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end, and the Palestinian people must have the right to live in and govern themselves in their own sovereign state.” This statement in this particular pro-Israel lobby was not only unprecedented but also a reflection of growing distance between Israeli lobbies working in the US and the US government.

The annual conference, hosted by J Street, fell at a nearly unprecedented low point in the US-Israeli relations. Existing tensions came to a head in the recent Israeli elections, when Netanyahu campaigned on a promise that he would not allow for the creation of a Palestinian state. Though he has since then been trying to reaffirm his support for a two-state solution, the White House has rejected his reversal. In response to the Israeli Prime Minister’s re-affirming statements, the US President responded by saying that the prime minister’s “corrective” statement was unconvincing and added that the conditions the Israeli leader placed on the creation of a Palestinian state would put the prospects for doing so out of reach. He further added, ““The issue is not a matter of relations between leaders. The issue is a very clear substantive challenge: We believe that two states (solution) is the best path forward for Israel’s security, for Palestinian aspirations, and for regional stability, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has a different approach.”

Although many have interpreted this rift as something stemming from tensions at personal level between Obama and Netanyahu, this phase of tension, in our opinion, is far more related to the evolving dynamics of Middle Eastern political landscape and the consequent change in American thinking. Behind this tension, many believe, lies the fact that Obama represents a faction in the US establishment that no longer views Israel as a major strategic asset; rather, it increasingly sees Israel as a burden on the US and, as a matter of fact, a liability in the Middle East. On the other hand, Israel too no longer sees the US as the only source of protection against its enemies—hence, new covert alliances with States and non-state actors alike. It is in this context that the covert alliance of Israel with the Saudi led block has to be understood. Similarly, Israel’s open support to Kurds and a separate Kurdish state also reflects how she is responding to the rapidly changing geo-political landscape. By extending its support to Kurdistan, Israel does hope to create new sources of worry for its erstwhile enemy state of Iran.

It is quite clear that Israel’s foremost strategic goal is to topple Iran’s Islamic regime, which views it as an existential threat. To achieve that goal, Israel – under Netanyahu to say the least – seeks a way to drag the US into war with Iran—an ideal situation for Israel to orchestrate. Netanyahu, as well as the Obama administration, surely know that only two possibilities regarding Iran exist: either a nuclear deal is struck, or a failure in negotiations leads to a familiar chain of events. If second scenario takes place, (chances of which are at the lowest now) the first in this chain would be tougher US sanctions against Iran, and then the continuation of the futile pattern of previous years, whereby Tehran would expand its nuclear programme and, in response, the US would issue new sanctions. Since that pattern cannot continue into perpetuity, logic and historical experiences dictate that it will end in an inadvertent or planned war. Although this scenario does considerably pair with the security interests of Israel, for the US, as fully understood by the administration, after the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, a war with Iran – which could very well gain regional dimensions – is neither viable nor politically affordable; for, neither does it match the US’ policy nor can it facilitate materialization of the US’ national interests.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”