Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, is due to make a speech before the United States Congress on March 3. Obviously, Netanyahu will make a last-ditch effort to disrupt a potential Iran nuclear agreement that Barack Obama's administration is negotiating. The United States is working toward a nuclear agreement with Iran together with China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany, while Israel regards any such agreement as a historic mistake. Netanyahu holds that such an agreement will ultimately lead to the weaponization of Iran's nuclear program.

President Obama, a democrat, was angry about Netanyahu's visit and has refused to meet with him, causing new tensions between the two allies. The official excuse for this diplomatic snub is that Netanyahu is running in the upcoming election on March 17 and the U.S. does not wish to meddle in Israel's domestic politics.

Though triggered by differences over the Iran nuclear issue, the tensions between the U.S. and Israel are actually deeply rooted in the relative decline in U.S. power and influence in the Middle East. Though the trend is obvious, it seems that Israel is not ready to adapt to the new reality.

Israeli scholars argue that Israel has long served as a strategic partner for the United States, first against the expansion of the former Soviet Union during the Cold War and later against the spread of terrorism after the Cold War. I accepted this point when I was a student of Middle East affairs, but further and more detailed studies have delivered different arguments. Israel actually has never been a worthy strategic ally of the U.S. but has in fact been a strategic burden.

Israel did help to prove that U.S. weapons were better in quality than those made by the former Soviet Union. Israel, armed with U.S. weapons, defeated united Arab forces armed with Soviet weapons in several Middle East wars.

But beyond that, little evidence indicates that Israel has been a worthy ally. Israel was not a capable ally for the U.S. against the former Soviet Union in terms of either geographic or demographic size. Though Israel did win several wars against its neighbors, its forces never moved beyond its neighboring areas. How could it have stopped the expansion of the former Soviet Union in the vast area we call West Asia and North Africa?

On the contrary, the U.S. has paid a high price for having Israel as an ally. During the Cold War, the United States distanced itself from the Arab world with very few exceptions simply because of its relationship with Israel. Without the variable of Israel, the U.S. could certainly have gained far more Arab allies. Even within some of the U.S.'s staunchest allies like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, there was very strong popular dissatisfaction with the U.S. during that period.

It was also to a great extent because of its pro-Israel policy that the U.S. became a major target of Middle Eastern terrorism. One of Al Qaeda's openly stated reasons for its anti-Americanism has been the U.S.'s longtime support for Israel.

Pro-Israel neo-conservatives' persuasion was also behind the George Bush administration's launch of the 2003 war that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq in the name of democracy and the destruction of WMDs. That war destroyed an arch enemy of Israel, but plunged the U.S. into a decade-long quagmire.

It is also partly due to Israeli pressure that the U.S. adopted a containment policy against Iran, another major regional power. That is one of the reasons that some Iranians hold such hatred for the United States.

Washington's pro-Israel policy is not the result of strategic considerations but rather a result of Jewish lobbying. Some conservatives might really sympathize and identify with Israel because of its especially difficult circumstances – it is a tiny democracy comprised of immigrants from all over the world surrounded by hostile autocracies. But many more politicians are believed to be influenced by organized Jewish donations. Both presidential elections and congressional elections have been targets of AIPAC, one of the most influential Jewish lobbying organizations.

It is certainly not true that pundits in Washington are unaware that Israel has been undermining the United States' strategic interests. The U.S. has never lacked experts like John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who have argued that U.S. Middle East policy has been hijacked by Jewish lobbyists.

Washington used to be able to pay the price for indulging Israel as an ally. The U.S. used to account for half of the global total military budgets, and major oil monarchies had no choice but to turn to the U.S. for security and protection. They had to embrace Uncle Sam regardless of its pro-Israel policy. Even Mubarak's Egypt was willing to accept U.S. assistance.

However, things have changed greatly in the past decade. Though still the largest single external actor in the Middle East, the U.S. will not be able to dominate regional affairs. In order to pivot to the Asia-Pacific region, the U.S. will have to transfer some of its strategic resources from the Middle East to East Asia, despite the fact that multiple hot spots in the region – Iraq and Afghanistan in particular – have already consumed a significant proportion of U.S. strategic resources.

The latest détente between the U.S. and Iran evident in the Iran nuclear negotiations actually marks a major shift in U.S. policy in the region. As a result of its decline, the U.S. will have to recognize the rise of Iran and the Shiite factions in the region and accept its due role. Despite containment, Iran has grown to be a power with influence across the whole region.

Although normalized relations between the U.S. and Iran do not necessarily threaten Israel's security, Israel does not feel comfortable. As a tiny nation with a bitter history and a limited population, Israel is extremely sensitive about external threats, but a declining U.S. is no longer willing to do whatever Israel asks it to do. Israel does not seem to be used to these changes.

But Israel will have to get used to the new regional realities. It is most unlikely that the U.S. will go back to its old policy of being over-indulgent of Israel since the U.S. cannot pay the price for such indulgence. By negotiating with Iran, Washington is announcing that it is both unable and unwilling to pay the cost of isolating Iran. The U.S., running short of strategic resources, will have to take a balanced approach in the region.

The special relationship between the U.S. and Israel will remain for a rather long time since sympathy and mutual identification between the two countries will continue to exist in the near future, but the U.S. can no longer pay the price for its spoiled little brother. It will have to take care of its own interests.

On the other hand, this does not necessarily mean that Israel's security will be undermined. Actually, it has not been Israel's security but rather the security of the other side that has been undermined in the past decades. And Palestine's right to nationhood has not even been honored as a result of Israel's intransigent policy.

Though the international community truly understands Israel's special concern for its security, Israel will have to accept that it can only achieve security through benign interaction and engagement with its neighbors, including Palestinians.

Source of documents：China.org.cn