An unprecedented attack in history is launched against the American vice president JD Vance through the National Interest, which echoes the positions of the military industrial complex of the USA and the hardliners of the American Pentagon.
The attack does not simply concern a disagreement over the Middle East.
It constitutes one of the most characteristic manifestations of the war being waged inside the American power system for the day after Donald Trump.
Vance is not a random politician.
On the contrary, he is already considered by many as the strongest favorite to lead the MAGA movement and to claim the presidency after Trump.
Exactly because of this, his every intervention acquires particular weight and his every deviation from the traditional lines of American foreign policy is now treated as a threat by the establishment of Washington.
The article of the National Interest constitutes a characteristic example of this confrontation.
The sin of Vance
His political misstep, according to his critics, was that he dared to question the absolute correctness of the Israeli position towards Iran and to argue that the United States cannot be constantly dragged into conflicts of the Middle East.
Vance did not question the USA – Israel alliance.
He did not propose an abandonment of Israel.
He did not question its right to self defense.
What he did was something much more dangerous for the traditional establishment of Washington: he questioned the doctrine according to which American strategic choices must adjust automatically to the demands of Tel Aviv.
The reaction was immediate.
The National Interest as a voice of hardline circles
The National Interest, despite its reputation as a strategic analysis magazine, historically hosts and expresses views connected with powerful circles of the American security establishment, the defense industry and the so-called foreign policy hawks.
The message of the article is absolutely clear.
The Vance is accused that:
1) he does not treat Israel as a unique ally,
2) he gives excessive space to diplomacy with Iran,
3) he causes insecurity to the allies of Washington in the Gulf,
4) he undermines the architecture of the Abraham Accords,
5) and mainly that he displays greater distrust towards Israel than towards Tehran.
Essentially, the article acts as a public indictment against the vice president of the USA.
What Vance said and why it caused anger in the pro-Israel camp
The clash did not break out by chance.
JD Vance recently has formulated a series of positions that deviate from the traditional line of Washington towards Israel and the Middle East.
The American vice president has repeatedly argued that the United States must not be involved automatically in every crisis of the region nor adopt without discussion the strategic choices of the Israeli leadership.
He has emphasized that the basic priority of American policy must be American interests and not the regional pursuits of any ally.
Particularly intense reactions were caused by his positions on Iran, when he argued that Washington must exhaust the margins of diplomacy and avoid a new military involvement in the Middle East. At the same time, he reportedly viewed with skepticism the public pressures of Israel towards the USA for a harder stance towards Tehran.
The big clash inside the American right
Behind the dispute over Israel lies something much bigger.
In the United States, two different camps are now clashing.
On one side is the traditional military industrial complex, the neoconservative circles, the supporters of the permanent American presence in the Middle East and those who consider that Washington must remain the undisputed global policeman.
On the other side is the new wing of the Trump movement, to which Vance belongs, which argues that American resources must be directed primarily to the strengthening of the domestic economy and to the competition with China, and not to endless involvements in the Middle East.
For the establishment, this approach constitutes a strategic threat.
Why Vance is considered dangerous
The real concern of his opponents does not relate exclusively to Israel or Iran.
It relates to the fact that Vance possesses political legitimacy within the base of the Republicans, enjoys the confidence of Trump and appears as the most likely heir of his political movement.
If Trump constituted the first rebellion against the American establishment, Vance is considered by many as the probability of permanenting this rebellion.
That is why his every position on foreign policy is now examined under the prism of the future battle for the control of the Republican Party and, ultimately, the White House.
The attack has just started
The article of the National Interest does not constitute simply a criticism of a vice president.
It constitutes a warning shot towards a politician who appears more and more as the natural successor of Trump.
The message of the hawks of Washington is clear: whoever questions the post-Cold War doctrine of American interventions, whoever asks for a redefinition of the relationship with Israel and whoever attempts to limit the role of the military industrial complex, will find themselves facing fierce attacks.
And JD Vance seems that he is now at the top of this list.
The influence of Israel in American media and the line formulation system
The attack against Vance cannot be cut off from the broader ecosystem of influence that has been formed in the USA around Israel: lobbying organizations, think tanks, donors, editorial boards, foreign policy columnists and political pressure networks.
It is not about a hidden control of the media, but about an absolutely visible mechanism of influence.
AIPAC states openly that it works cross-partisantly for the strengthening of the USA – Israel relationship, through lobbying, political support and grassroots action.
This means that the pro-Israel line does not appear only in Congress, but diffuses also into the public sphere: in think tanks, in opinion articles, in television analyses and in the political language used by the big media.
Thus, when a top Republican like Vance questions the logic of unconditional alignment with Israel, the reaction is not limited to political disagreement.
It turns into a campaign of disparagement.
Dangerous isolationist
The politician who speaks of America First is presented roughly as a dangerous isolationist.
Whoever asks for control of American involvement in the Middle East appears as naive towards Iran.
And whoever considers that Israel cannot automatically dictate the strategic decisions of Washington is treated as a threat to Western security itself.
This is the real message of the attack against Vance: the American power system tolerates criticism of war, as long as it does not touch the sacred and holy things of post-Cold War foreign policy. And one of these is the special relationship with Israel.
The Vance case shows that whoever attempts to move the discussion from what Israel wants to what benefits the United States, finds themselves immediately in the crosshairs.
Not necessarily because they are anti-Israeli, but because they question the hierarchy of power that has been formed for decades in Washington.
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments