The United States is in a trying position with two of its most consequential foreign friends: the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Washington has provided broad military backing to both, even when their actions run counter to long-term US interests. A more clear-eyed approach is needed.
Over the last year, Netanyahu repeatedly defied US efforts to de-escalate the war in Gaza. Earlier last month he may even have intentionally scuttled US diplomatic efforts for a ceasefire. And in the past few days, he has backtracked after agreeing to a ceasefire in Lebanon, publicly embarrassing the Biden administration.
Now, he is forging ahead with a ground offensive against Hezbollah that will cut another swath of destruction into Lebanon. More than 1,000 civilians died in a series of strikes last week that ultimately assassinated Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah last week, according to Lebanese officials.
No one in Washington will mourn Nasrallah’s death or doubt Israel’s right to self-defense against Iran and Iranian proxies like Hezbollah. But Netanyahu’s decision to expand the war to Lebanon flies in the face of Biden’s multiple calls for restraint and diplomacy.
The United States simply can’t afford to back Israel in an escalating conflict that damages America’s global reputation, makes it a renewed target of terrorists or entraps it in a costly and unwinnable war with Iran. Right now, Netanyahu has no plan to avoid these outcomes and is paying only lip service to diplomacy that might contain the conflict.
Netanyahu defies Biden more blatantly than does Zelenskyy, who is a more sympathetic character to begin with and in a different war. But his actions are speaking louder than his words these days, and the gap between his war aims and what is best for America is increasingly clear.
Ukraine’s cause is just and its sovereignty should be preserved, but, here again, the United States cannot be dragged, inch by inch, into an interminable war – especially one that carries real nuclear risks.
Zelenskyy has been unwilling to take meaningful steps toward a realistic ceasefire. Instead, he presses on ostensibly in hope of recapturing all Ukraine’s lost territory by force of arms.
Earlier this summer, Zelenskyy even approved an attack into Russia’s Kursk region that was so risky he hid it from the Pentagon (just as Netanyahu last week gave US officials the impression he was interested in a ceasefire with Lebanon when he was in fact planning to open up a new front in the war).
Meanwhile, the “victory plan” that Zelenskyy presented to Biden last week was yet another demand for more weapons and an end to restrictions on those the United States has given him.
Why can’t Biden do more to rein in his friends?
For one, he is hemmed in by his staunch ideological commitment to defending democracy and allies at all costs. These are worthy causes, but centering them so squarely in US foreign policy has made it very hard to influence Israel and Ukraine in their time of need.
Zelenskyy and Netanyahu meanwhile fear political disaster if they retreat from their hardline positions. And given that they have paid almost no price for ignoring Washington so far, why change course?
To get these problematic friends to align their strategies with US interests, Washington can offer them sweeteners – for Ukraine, a realistic plan for its postwar security needs; for Israel, the economic benefits of normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia.
Both these options are being explored, but they might require major new military commitments that Washington would be wiser to avoid – full Ukrainian membership in Nato and a US defense treaty with Saudi Arabia.
Such incentives therefore need to be combined with tougher love from Washington.
To begin with, the White House should not be timid about making clear in public how it sees US interests, even when these diverge from its friends. The Biden administration has grown more critical of Netanyahu recently, but it could still go further, more pointedly perhaps.
With Zelenskyy, Biden has mostly pulled his punches. This may be because the White House believes that staunch backing for Kyiv would deter Russia. If so, the plan hasn’t worked.
The White House may now also fear that tough love for Zelenskyy could harm Kamala Harris’s chances of winning swing voters in Pennsylvania. Will this work? It’s unclear.
Conditioning the levels of military assistance to both countries is another option. Washington regularly conditions foreign assistance, but Biden has been hesitant to do so.
Some Democrats may shudder at the thought of curtailing US military support to Ukraine, especially given Donald Trump’s crude proposals to this effect. But unless Ukraine is willing to adopt a strategy to end the war in a realistic timeframe without dangerously escalating it, curtailing support may be the only option to avoid another endless war. Republican proposals to increase pressure simultaneously on the Kremlin and Kyiv could work and should not be ignored by Democrats.
Israel, which the United States provides with $3.8bn in annual military aid, has used US bombs extensively in strikes in Gaza and now Lebanon. If elected, Harris may need to go further than Biden has in restricting deliveries of offensive weapons and applying pressure on Netanyahu – while keeping the screws turned on Iran and its proxies.
A Trump administration is unfortunately likely to be keen on the screw turning but timid in pressuring Netanyahu – just as Biden has been with Zelenskyy.
Americans – and the world – deserve more consistency and less partisanship in US foreign policy. Whoever enters the White House in January needs to align US foreign policy broadly with American values, but also focus more clearly on US interests and not shy away from difficult conversations with our friends.
Christopher S Chivvis is a senior fellow and director of the Carnegie Endowment’s American statecraft program
