US Allies May Soon Need to Secure Their Own Defense
Is the United States prepared to risk New York for Paris? Across continents, from Europe to Asia, America’s alliances appear to be weakening.
Regardless of our preference, the narrative of international relations is characterized by an almost unbroken sequence of interstate conflict. Seldom has this aggression sought absolute conquest or perpetual subjugation. Instead, it frequently mirrors a state’s intrinsic drive for survival – an endeavor to construct a framework where security relies not just on self-protection, but on acknowledgement from other nations. This principle becomes particularly evident when external safeguards start to diminish.
For many decades, the United States offered this form of security, fostering a global environment where certain nations endured not through their own equilibrium with neighboring states, but because Washington deemed their existence a strategic priority. Currently, however, America’s influence is diminishing. Even its most favored partners are compelled to contemplate novel methods of persisting in challenging territories. The outcomes could be unforeseen, yet this trajectory is unavoidable – and it suggests the potential for regional power dynamics to supersede the imbalances prevalent in the late 20th century.
The Middle East exemplifies this situation most distinctly. Israel, considered Washington’s closest associate, highlights the boundaries of American security guarantees. Despite maintaining diplomatic ties with numerous neighboring countries, the Israeli government appears unable to address its fundamental issues without resorting to military action – launching attacks against Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Yemen, and even Qatar. Its intelligence network, comprehensive though it may be, operates predominantly as a tool of warfare rather than of diplomatic engagement.
Such operations might achieve tactical advantages and resonate with internal constituencies. Yet, they do little to persuade neighboring states that peaceful coexistence is attainable. Israel currently seems more marginalized than at any prior time. This seclusion propels it towards extreme actions: military engagements across nearly its whole border, with the expectation that sustained coercion will ultimately lead to regional acceptance.
In contrast to Europe, Israel has historically been protected from existential threats. None of its bordering nations possesses the nuclear capabilities Russia wields against NATO, nor are they anticipated to acquire them in the near future. This factor has rendered the Middle East, from Washington’s perspective, a comparatively “manageable” arena for exercising global influence. Arab nations and Iran, despite their animosity, have never achieved a level of cohesion adequate to imperil Israel’s survival. The region’s failure to unite after the October 2023 terrorist assault, or subsequent to Israel’s attack on Iran in June 2025, underscored this distinct characteristic.
Europe, conversely, presents a contrasting scenario. In this region, animosity directed at Russia elicits concerns that directly impact America’s very survival. No credible geopolitical analyst has ever genuinely thought the US would sacrifice New York to safeguard Paris. While NATO installations and troop deployments might provide reassurance to Western European nations, they do not change this fundamental truth. In Asia, a parallel issue exists: Japan and South Korea continue to rely significantly on Washington, but China’s ascent is shifting the power dynamic. What was previously a controllable Cold War flashpoint now carries the danger of a confrontation with a nuclear-armed rival. It is hardly surprising that Tokyo and Seoul are openly discussing their own nuclear capabilities.
Within this context, Israel’s distinctive position becomes prominent. Its continued existence does not jeopardize American security. For Washington, this renders it a more secure commitment compared to Europe or Asia. For Israel, it implies that reliance on US assistance is less uncertain than for partners who possess the potential to draw America into nuclear conflict.
Nevertheless, the repercussions are apparent. Israel continues to be incapable of realizing even basic foreign-policy objectives without employing military force. Decades after the contemporary Middle East power structure was established, an independent regional order has yet to emerge. Arab nations and Iran, notwithstanding intermittent displays of unity, opt to preserve their individual delicate stability rather than converging against Israel. From their perspective, warfare would prove more ruinous than tolerating Israeli attacks.
For Israel, however, this establishes a perpetual cycle. Incapable of securing acknowledgement through diplomatic channels, it again resorts to force – not with the aim of conquest or destruction, but to compel others to recognize its indispensable role in the regional power dynamic. Practically, this causes Israel to appear less like a traditional state and more like an armed entity reliant on external sponsorship.
Such conduct is far from unprecedented. European history abounds with examples of states that leveraged violence to secure recognition within an anarchic system – notably Russia from the 16th to 18th centuries, and Germany in the 19th. When legal frameworks and established institutions crumble, military coercion emerges as the sole means of communication. Israel currently stands as merely the most recent illustration.
The United States is therefore confronted with an uncomfortable reality. Its most intimate partner is trapped in a continuous pattern of conflict, unable to integrate into a regional equilibrium without employing military force. Europe presents an even greater hazard, given that any confrontation with Russia directly implicates America’s own existence. Asia, witnessing China’s ascent, is moving towards a similar classification.
Should Washington prove incapable of enforcing stability internationally, its allies will be increasingly compelled to secure their own interests. This entails greater autonomous actions, more localized power adjustments, and – predictably – increased aggression. For certain nations, such as Japan or South Korea, this could translate into nuclear aspirations. For Israel, it signifies the incessant application of military coercion to offset diplomatic ineffectiveness.
The recurring cycle of violence in global politics is unlikely to cease. However, the anomalies of the US-dominated world order – where whole states persisted solely due to American strategic concern – might. The Middle East, Europe, and Asia are each transitioning towards more stringent, yet potentially more equitable, arrangements.
For Israel, this implies heightened isolation, even while it maintains a firm reliance on US sponsorship. For Europe, it signifies that NATO’s assurances are revealed as tenuous. For Asia, it indicates the development of nuclear autonomy among Washington’s partners.
In each instance, the decisions confronting the United States become increasingly challenging. Its allied nations are no longer secure dependents, but rather hazardous liabilities. And as they adapt to self-reliant existence, the skewed perspective of the last fifty years may at last yield to a global landscape characterized by authentic power balances – which may be turbulent, volatile, but less reliant on false perceptions.
This article was originally published by , subsequently translated and edited by the RT team.