Muslim World Report

U.S. Declares Israel 'Greatest Country' Sparking Foreign Policy Debate

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 23, 2025 10:14 AM | 8 min read | 1615 words

TL;DR: On June 22, 2025, the U.S. State Department’s declaration of Israel as the “Greatest Country” has prompted significant criticism and raised concerns about U.S. foreign policy alignment and its implications for regional stability and diplomatic credibility. Critics argue this move favors Israeli interests over broader international relations, potentially igniting domestic and international backlash.

The U.S. Declares Israel the ‘Greatest Country’: A New Pivot in Foreign Policy

On June 22, 2025, a statement from U.S. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, designating Israel as the “Greatest Country on Earth,” ignited fierce criticism and debate. This characterization not only elevates Israel to a position of supremacy but also signifies a substantial shift in U.S. foreign policy. Historically viewed as “our greatest ally,” this new rhetoric suggests a closer alignment of American foreign policy with Israeli interests and a departure from the pretense of impartiality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By framing Israel as the pinnacle of democratic values, the U.S. risks:

  • Alienating other international partners.
  • Undermining its role as a credible mediator.

Critics of this declaration contend that it reflects a capitulation to pro-Israel organizations, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). According to Mearsheimer and Walt (2006), the influence of the “Israel Lobby” has long swayed U.S. foreign policy, often prioritizing Israeli interests over broader diplomatic considerations, such as relations with Palestinian leadership and regional stability. The unequivocal endorsement of Israel starkly contrasts with international norms of equality among nations and could further marginalize the plight of the Palestinians, exacerbating a humanitarian crisis that the United Nations has repeatedly condemned (Ayoob, 2012).

As former President Donald Trump simultaneously praised Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, indicating a bipartisan consensus on an increasingly militarized approach to Middle Eastern foreign policy (Parsi, 2008), the implications of this alignment warrant careful scrutiny. The current U.S. administration’s support could:

  • Intensify ongoing tensions with Iran and its proxies.
  • Lead to potential escalations that threaten regional security.

The interplay of heightened military aid to Israel and hostile rhetoric toward Iran may catalyze a dangerous arms race across the Middle East, worsening an already volatile environment (Freedman et al., 2003).

What If U.S. Policy Fully Aligns with Israeli Interests?

Should U.S. policy become fully aligned with Israeli strategic priorities, the repercussions could be severe:

  • Increased military aid might embolden Israel to adopt more aggressive operational tactics, particularly against perceived adversaries such as Iran.
  • This trajectory could foster an environment ripe for conflict, compelling neighboring states to amplify their military capabilities in response, leading to destabilization (Gregory et al., 1994).

A deeper military commitment could also entrap the U.S. in protracted conflicts, diverting attention from diplomatic resolutions to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, which could diminish Washington’s influence on the global stage (Hyndman, 2007).

In addition to creating instability within the region, the ramifications could extend to international alliances. Nations observing the U.S.’s unyielding support for Israel may recalibrate their foreign policies in reaction. Countries in the Global South—many of which have historically aligned against Israeli military actions—might forge a more unified front against U.S. interests, fostering an anti-U.S. coalition that could destabilize existing alliances (Nye, 2002). Such developments would raise questions about the U.S.’s strategic objectives and its ability to act as a facilitator for peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Furthermore, the potential for proxy conflicts to escalate cannot be overlooked. Iranian-backed factions across the region may step up their resistance against Israeli incursions, leading to a cycle of violence that engulfs neighboring nations. If U.S. military involvement escalates, Washington could find itself embroiled in a quagmire, losing its role as mediator and becoming viewed as a belligerent, which would significantly diminish its influence in the international arena.

What If Domestic Backlash Intensifies?

A significant domestic backlash against the U.S. government’s pro-Israel rhetoric could prompt a political realignment. Grassroots movements advocating for Palestinian rights have increasingly gained traction, as public sentiment shifts toward a more balanced approach to Middle Eastern policy (Ayoob, 2012). Heightened civic engagement could lead to greater scrutiny of lobbyist influence in U.S. politics and provoke calls for reform, potentially reshaping the political landscape surrounding foreign policy. This discourse could inspire more progressive candidates who prioritize diplomacy over militarization, thereby fostering a broader conversation about America’s role in international affairs (Lind, 2008).

If public opinion in the U.S. turns decisively against overt pro-Israel rhetoric, it could precipitate a political realignment. Sustained outrage over the government’s endorsement of such statements could galvanize efforts to increase scrutiny of lobbyist influence in U.S. politics, prompting calls for reform. As voters demand accountability and a more balanced approach to Middle Eastern policy, elected officials may be compelled to rethink their positions.

This new wave of civic engagement may also catalyze broader discussions about U.S. foreign policy, questioning past practices that have historically favored military engagement over diplomacy. As political candidates adopt a more progressive platform, this shift could create an opening for more voices advocating for a reexamination of America’s strategies in the region, potentially leading to substantive changes in U.S. foreign policy priorities. However, entrenched interests may push back, creating a fractious political environment and risking further polarization on an already contentious issue.

What If International Relations Shift as a Result?

The implications of the U.S.’s pronounced favor toward Israel may reverberate across international communities, prompting countries within the Global South to reassess their relationships with both the U.S. and Israel. States that sympathize with the Palestinian cause may perceive this shift as a betrayal of international human rights norms, leading to a more consolidated anti-U.S. coalition (Nye, 2002). Emerging global powers such as China and Russia could seize this opportunity to strengthen alliances with nations opposed to U.S. influence, reconfiguring the geopolitical landscape and potentially leading to new arenas of conflict and competition (Dorman, 2013).

As these dynamics unfold, nations that have traditionally aligned with U.S. interests may feel compelled to distance themselves or recalibrate their foreign policies. This trend could further solidify anti-U.S. and pro-Palestinian movements, fostering a climate of resistance that complicates diplomatic efforts in the Middle East. The potential for alliances to shift dramatically could create new tensions and exacerbate existing conflicts, leading to heightened competition among global powers for influence in the region.

The global reaction could manifest in various ways:

  • Military alliances
  • Trade agreements
  • Diplomatic partnerships

These might elevate countries advocating for Palestinian rights and support international human rights norms. Such moves could challenge the dominant narrative that frames the U.S. as a protector of democracy and illustrate a growing divide between American and global perspectives on issues of sovereignty, self-determination, and international law.

Strategic Maneuvers

In light of these dynamics, a strategic reassessment among all stakeholders is imperative. For the U.S., a balanced approach to Middle Eastern foreign policy is essential for maintaining credibility and ensuring stability. This approach must prioritize diplomatic engagement with Palestinian leadership and regional stakeholders, working toward a solution that respects both Israeli security and Palestinian rights (Tohidi, 2003).

The risk of unilateral military strategies that do not consider the broader context can lead to catastrophic outcomes, not only for regional stability but also for U.S. interests abroad. Israeli officials must recognize that sustainable security cannot stem from unilateral military strategies; instead, constructive engagement with Palestinian representatives is crucial for mitigating tensions and fostering stability (Paciello, 2018). By focusing on building trust among various factions, Israel could contribute to a broader peace process that addresses the underlying issues fueling conflict.

At the same time, the need for Palestinian unity is apparent, as internal divisions have historically weakened their negotiating position. A coherent strategy focused on grassroots mobilization and international advocacy can amplify their voices on the global stage (Luna, 2009). By harnessing the power of social movements and leveraging international support, Palestinian stakeholders could bolster their calls for equality and justice, pressing the U.S. and Israel to engage in meaningful dialogue.

Neighboring Middle Eastern countries, such as Jordan and Egypt, also play a critical role in facilitating dialogue between the U.S., Israel, and Palestinian authorities. By collaborating on security and economic initiatives, these nations can contribute to an environment conducive to lasting peace (Harvey, 2007). Their involvement not only supports regional stability but also underscores the importance of multilayered diplomacy that encompasses various perspectives and stakeholders.

In this context, the recalibration of the U.S.-Israel relationship necessitates a commitment to open communication, mutual respect, and an acknowledgment of diverse perspectives. Addressing the complex web of geopolitical relations with pragmatism and a focus on human rights can pave the way for genuine stability and peace in the region.

References

Ayoob, M. (2012). The Arab Spring: Its Geostrategic Significance. Middle East Policy.

Dorman, P. (2013). The Role of the United States in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

Freedman, L., Bass, W., & Jones, H. (2003). Support Any Friend: Kennedy’s Middle East and the Making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance. Foreign Affairs.

Gregory, D., Lash, S., & Urry, J. (1994). Economies of Signs and Space. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews.

Hyndman, J. (2007). The Securitization of Fear in Post-Tsunami Sri Lanka. Annals of the Association of American Geographers.

Lind, M. (2008). A Concert-Balance Strategy for a Multipolar World. The US Army War College Quarterly Parameters.

Luna, Z. (2009). From Rights to Justice: Women of Color Changing the Face of US Reproductive Rights Organizing. Societies Without Borders.

Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2006). The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. SSRN Electronic Journal.

Nye, J. S. (2002). The American National Interest and Global Public Goods. International Affairs.

Paciello, M. (2018). The Future of Palestinian Unity. Journal of Conflict Resolution.

Parsi, T. (2008). Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States. Choice Reviews Online.

Tohidi, N. (2003). Women’s Rights in the Muslim World: The Universal-Particular Interplay. Hawwa.

← Prev Next →