Public opinion on US-Iran tensions and the US troop withdrawal from the Middle East is largely negative, marked by skepticism and concern about potential conflict escalation. Many express fatigue over prolonged US military involvement, doubting the effectiveness of such engagements in addressing underlying socio-economic and political issues. There is particular distrust in the motivations behind recent decisions, with fears of geopolitical manipulation and adverse effects on global stability. Some feel relieved about the partial withdrawal but are wary of redeployments, highlighting the complexities of shifting alliances.

US government

Iran

Israel

Kurds

For me, the question of whether or not we should have entered into this conflict is different from if we should withdraw. We have found again and again that rapid withdraw from conflict creates a vacuum that is likely to be filled by something. Likely something worse than what we see now. 
We saw that the withdrawal from Iraq allowed leeway for ISIS to make its rise, that rapid withdrawal from Vietnam allowed the Khmer Rouge to massacre millions in Cambodia, and yet leaving troops in Korea, Japan, and Germany allowed no vacuum to ensue. 
The Turkish are already hoping to massacre the Kurds in Syria, Assad has gassed his own citizens in the past. By withdrawing we will likely foster genocide and potentially even a fully fledged proxy war throughout the Middle East such as, or drastically worse than, the one currently taking place in Yemen.
I do not necessarily agree that we should have entered the conflict, but withdrawal could have drastic side effects that may not occur if a stay behind force is implemented to protect those in conflict with dictatorial governments such as the Assad regime and the Turks.

kvhdutch

Hey man, I don’t know where to go from here. It doesn’t look like I’m gonna change your mind but it was a really interesting discussion. Cheers.

[deleted]

I agree that getting out of Syria was the correct strategic decision, but also agree with others that Trump’s decision was the worst way to do it. 

To look at two major reasons:

1)  Pulling out does have downsides and risks.  Our allies like the Kurds will be at risk, our rivals like Russia and Iran will be strengthened, and our enemies like ISIS may not be defeated for good.   Now, I want out of Syria so I have to accept some of these consequences.  But there’s a difference between telling the national security complex “I want out of Syria, you have six months to do it so come up with a plan, including how best to announce it,” and surprising everyone one afternoon.  One approach gives you a chance to minimize those downside risks, the other probably makes them worse.

The best analogy I can think of is deciding you can’t afford your house.  One way to deal with that is to spend a few months packing up, cleaning it up and putting it on the market to sell.  The other approach is to just drive away one night and let the bank deal with it.

2) Since others want us to leave, our decision to leave is potentially worth something to them.  So we could have potentially negotiated something in return for a decision to depart.  Maybe it’s a more preferable outcome in Syria, maybe it’s something somewhere else entirely.   But randomly announcing a decision one afternoon means we get nothing in return.  We had something to sell and we decided to give it away instead.

Barnst

There’s no stated evidence of American policy of protecting the Kurds but just go to the military subreddit, those guys feel like they’re abandoning a friend

Trump made his proclamation via tweet, completely blindsiding his own administration, including the Pentagon and his Secretary of Defense, as well as the various u.s. allies in the region. His willingness to make a major strategic decision without consulting anyone with expertise on the situation first creates enormous distrust of u.s. resolve in many unrelated areas, and makes foreign actors less likely to trust any other promises of support made by our country, because they know now that Trump will happily renege on those promises on a whim, with absolutely no warning. Even if pulling out of Syria *was* the right decision, he made that decision in absolutely the worst possible way, and making the right decision in a terrible way can be more harmful than making the wrong decision. 

RareMajority

Regardless of the merits of the decision to withdraw out of Syria, the lack of preparation was a terrible decision.

President Trump didn't consult with senior staff to draw up a withdrawal plan. He didn't provide advanced notice to allies.

Instead, he just publicly announced it. 

Syria was caused by USA's illegal invasion of Iraq.  


If you believe in any kind of morality, it is their mess that they must fix.

psinet

Just because you don't see what a viable solution could be doesn't mean it's justified to leave. There are plenty of reasons to stay even if there isn't a clear cut endgame. I'll go through a few:

Power vaccum: Maybe there is an argument against the engagement in the first place but the reality is the US is there now. Leaving now is going to leave a massive power vaccum that will be filled either by an ISIS resurgence or a brutal recapture of power by the Assad regime bolstered by Iran and Russia. The Assad side has already shown a willingness to use chemical weapons against their own population and its my  belief the only thing keeping that in check to this point is the risk of American collateral damage in on of these attacks. With US troops gone, they will have no reason to hold back. There is no longer another shoe that could drop. Purely from a humanitarian standpoint the US has reason to stay. Make no mistake the responsibility for the brutalities that we are going to hear about over the coming months rests, in part, on Trump's shoulders. From a local perspective, leaving now is the equivalent of bailing water out of a boat and failing to fix the leak. The water is just going to rush back in and the last 10ish years of effort will be for nothing. Ive seen the other counter arguments of "but this is how it'll end anyways" and I'll address what the US could do instead at the end. 

Reigonal interests: With the world turning against Saudia Arabia because of the slain journalist, there are few regional powers to counter balance Iran, which is in essence a Russian proxy. Leaving is essentially a cessesion of power to the Russians which, from a US perspective, ought to be a bad thing especially in light of their more belligerent approach to Ukraine recently. The US is giving up an established military presence and leaving it to Turkey, who has all but said their interest is in killing Kurds. 

Allied interests: Israel is a major US ally and pulling out of Syria has major security implications for them. It gives a direct corridor for Iran to arm hezbollah and Hamas. This might not be a bad thing in your mind, and people generally don't care for the US-Israel relationship but the reality is they are an ally. In a time when trump is treating alliances like toilet paper pulling out of Syria once again says to the world that all the US cares about is "what have you done for me recently".

The point is the withdrawal could have had a better plan attached to it. Instead Trump is just fully pulling out. No concessions from the Assad regime, no promises from Turkey not to start committing genocide, they haven't even really defeated ISIS. They could have replaced military engagement with diplomatic engagement. Crafted a treaty. Trump is supposed to be the master negotiator and yet he's getting nothing out of this. If I'm being totally cynical I think he figured "bringing the troops home" would get him a ratings bump, and now people will die horrifically so his ego can manage to get through another news cycle. 

Thundawg

Because TheMightyFuckingUnited States always claims it stands by it's allies. And the Kurds bled against ISIS on the word of Fucking Renegging American Support. Now Fucking America is hanging them out to dry. Not something that I would be proud of if I was a Fucking American.

S_E_P1950

&gt; there's no evidence that the American government intended to do anything of the sort, because it would infuriate Turkey, who the government doesn't want to offend because of the critical American air base at Incirlik.

This is a minor point, but while it's mostly the air base, it's not solely the air base. Turkey also has the [second-biggest army in NATO.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Armed_Forces) The Turkish army is almost [twice as big as the third-biggest NATO army.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/584286/number-of-military-personnel-in-nato-countries/)

Plus Turkey has dammed the [Tigris and Euphrates](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-turkey/turkey-halts-filling-tigris-dam-after-iraq-complains-of-water-shortages-idUSKCN1J320X) which gives them huge leverage over Iraq. This is pretty nice if you're NATO.

It seems easy to me to see why it was a bad idea, even though I don't want troops in Syria or anywhere in the Middle East for that matter.

What did we gain from pulling out right now in the way we did?  We have several adversaries that wanted us to pull our troops out.  That means we have leverage and can gain something.  Instead Trump just gave them what they wanted and gained absolutely nothing for it.  It is like a free giveaway when at LEAST he could have gained some concessions about Kurdish protections in Turkey and Syria or a guarantee of talks about that stuff or SOMETHING.

Ozimandius

I don’t object to reducing our presence in the Middle East, but we should have remained in a supervisory &amp; support role to guard against a potential resurgence of ISIL, and to monitor the Assad regime to prevent him from using chemical weapons against his own people again.

It’s not our war, and we don’t need a large presence. But we do have a responsibility to show some leadership after destabilizing the region with the Iraq War. 

auldnate

the US maintains a presence in the ME to ensure our access to oil

we don't care about ISIS or any other damn thing that goes on in the ME as long as they sell us oil

any oil that goes to us means what's left is more expensive for other countries who are dependent on oil

leaving syria will create a vacuum that russia is going to fill

and there you have it.  within 5 years, cost of gas and plastic is gonna go up.



It’s not what he’s doing but how he’s doing it 

kochikame

I don't disagree that America had no real role in Syria, but they went in in support of the Kurds. What Trump has done has condemned the Kurds to an attack by the Turkish forces and no doubt they will be aided and abetted by Iranian Syrian forces. America reaches it's promises yet again under Trump. All that Lip Service paid to the Kurds wasn't worth shot. America now stands as a totally unreliable Ally and trade partner.

Only when Trump pulls the troops from Syria, will all the democrats come out in support of military force. Trump could ban all guns tomorrow and the left would argue that that violates the constitution. If any democrat pulled the troops out of Syria, the left would praise the decision. The Democratic Party has gone from advocating for disenfranchised individuals and attempting to elevate their social standing, to purely an anti trump party and it’s disgusting. As a progressive, it’s very disappointing to see.

[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Their military would probably become weaker. They would still hold the technological edge over any potential rivals in the Middle East, but it wouldn’t be by quite as much. However, without the U.S. funding and supporting the Iron Dome, there would become a legitimate chance that it runs out of ammo and leaves their cities vulnerable in ways they haven’t been in almost twenty years. Couple that with October 7th and their foreign policy would probably become a lot more aggressive.

It would also be harder for them to normalize relations with their neighbors. The U.S. played a significant role in every treaty where an Arab nation recognized them as a legitimate state.

AgentQwas

You should read what Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) writes about this topic. It’s an Israeli think tank that has top notch researchers and leaders at the helm. 

https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Memo202_e-131-142.pdf

TL;DR: 

Short term Impact:
- Loss of $3.8B annual aid (20% of Israel’s defense budget)
- Reduced ability to maintain long-term military procurement programs
- Weakened Iron Dome and missile defense capabilities

Strategic Impact:
- Israel would maintain technological edge but with a smaller gap
- Would need to divert significant civilian resources to defense
- QME (Qualitative Military Edge) over regional rivals would be harder to maintain
- Defense industry would be severely impacted due to lost joint projects/funding

Regional Impact:
- Israel would remain militarily capable but relatively weaker
- Would likely adopt more aggressive foreign policy to compensate
- Israel would have less control over arms sales to Arab states
- Regional deterrence would be reduced

dinodong54321

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow"


Suddenly, China will have a new strategic partner (Israel) in the area and have much greater access to the Middle East

yellow_smurf10

If Israel was abandoned, it would do whatever it takes to survive.  As it runs out of air defense missiles, it would compensate by becoming very aggressive and seeking to seize territory to create a buffer zone around it.  The use of nuclear weapons would be on the table and may be used if seriously attacked.  Their air force is mostly American planes, and without spare parts they would seek to press their advantage before they run out of parts.

  
In the end, it could cause a regional war.

FRCP_12b6

Very little. People vastly overestimate how dependent Israel is on the us for military support. It mainly allows them to spend less of their own money on defense. We just saw how they peeled Iranian proxies like an onion without any us assistance. 

For the record this is just an assessment, not an endorsement or denunciation of any state or political actor please don’t @ me about the virtues or vices of you chosen or hated side.

HostisHumanisGeneri

I think it would make them a lot more aggressive in the immediate short term because they’d have a limited window to achieve their goals and they’d probably be willing to fully invade countries like Lebanon to stop rocket attacks. Might even attack Iran as a way to force the United States to get involved.

fjf1085

If US stopped supporting them militarily they would support them financially

Is there any way the land could have been divided in the 1936 Peel Commission (and subsequent Resolution 181) that would have satisfied the Arab leadership? It seems a big beef that the Arabs had was that the Jews got the more fertile ground in the deal. If the fertile ground would have been divided equally, would that have made a difference? I'm a simpleton and I am thinking that if that one thing would have been made equal - fertile land divided equally in 1947 - that we'd have relative peace in the region today. ??

CeilingUnlimited

Their offensive capabilities would probably stay the same - they actively choose more expensive weapons for precision (and because US aid has supplier strings attached), but a lot of the money and resources associated with the US aid and suppliers isn't about more firepower, but less collateral. We can't say much about intelligence, but what is known to the public suggests the US would lose much more middle east intelligence than Israel would; middle-east-originated attacks on US soil would be more likely than less Israeli ability to pull off assassinations.

Where the US usually plays a critical role is in their defenses (the dome), and is a large part of why Israel ignores most offensive action against them for years on end; and why US pressure on Israel not to retaliate is so effective most of the time. Effectively, Israel would be forced to attack for rapid decapitation. This would see a large increase in oil and gas prices, and probably make renewable and nuclear energy more viable.

It is broadly possible that US prioritization of oil and gas prices and pressure has consistently backfired and made things worse for Israel, in which case, perhaps the region will settle down after a flare-up.

Yrths

I think noone can estimate this. But still. 

Israel is extremely determined and their population realises that if they fail to protect themselves they will disappear and that Trumps everything. 

Plus their intelligence and defense industry probably grows their economy because everyone wants to buy it, so it's probably something they will never cut in.

Their military and intelligence advantages vis a vis the world will not slow down. They will face economic hardships because the population will have to endure. But let's be honest: Israel will have to defend itself because if not they will disappear from the middle east, and there is not 1 Israeli that wants this. So they will never give up, even if the US will cut all aid

Dietmeister

Would they continue supporting the KSA and UAE? It would be a definite shift in power balances in the area either way but America no longer supporting *anyone* would look very different than America withdrawing support from Israel specifically. An America that didn't support anyone and also didn't antagonise/counter anyone would be very strange indeed and that's likely the only one where Israel is much threatened. Iran and potentially a much changed Iraq might be threatening.

It's certainly not happening anyhow of course.

NorthernerWuwu

Gaza would be gone 

Right now idf use smart bombs but without U.S. support they’d have to use normal bombs

In other words 

Much more death

Vredddff

Israel is a nuclear power.  There is very little chance of it falling as a nation when it could annihilate any six of its regional neighbors in an afternoon.

For a while, it would likely suffer ammo and equipment shortages, but the way the world is there are certainly other nations that would step up and supply it for the right price.

It would not alter the current war/occupation in Gaza at all.  Netanyahu needs the war to continue to keep his somewhat precarious political position viable, and there is a good chance he'd be ousted from power via parliamentary maneuvers once it's over.

dhusk

Well they should have started with not conducting Operation Cyclone, which started this shit show in the middle east in the first place. Then there has been like 160 Billion dollars in military aid for Israel by the US alone, so the damage has been already done in that regard. If the government doesn't change, I firmly believe they get radicalized even more and start their plan on greater Israel, which will lead to a bunch of humanitarian crisis in the area.

Without smart bombs they will need to use dumb bombs to achieve their (non-negotiable) goals. Thus, more collateral damage will happen.

US weapons **save** Palestinian lives.

yang_ivelt

It’s not about what will happen in the Middle East, the larger impact will be outside it as the value of allying with the United States would erode.  Israel is our strongest partner in the Middle East, abandoning after a terrorist attack would send a terrible message to all of our other allies.

siberianmi

If we were to stop supporting Israel, we would run the very real risk of being complicit in the end of Israel as we know it and a loss of Jewish life that would dwarf what we saw on 10/7.  In as much as many nations fear an escalating situation where the United States actively inserts itself, if we were to fade from the equation, that fear fades, too.

Our support of Israel is a moral one, not a realpolitik one.  While there's strategic benefit to us by being allied with them in the region, it's not the primary reason, and it would be a moral failing of us as a society and nation to abandon that.

ClockOfTheLongNow

So...

They're a major arms exporter and producer themselves.

The primary thing they're receiving from the U.S. offensively is highly accurate JDAM modules. They had their own they were developing but those are expensive and troublesome to build.

Worst case scenario, they'd offer what they know about the F-35 to an Asian trade partner - hopefully Japan or Korea but there are other options.

And those options all have the capacity to build the interceptor missiles they need for iron dome and would jump at the chance to get access to that technology.

So here's basically what happens and why the U.S. will never abandon Israel.

1. The guardrails come off and the U.S. loses all capacity to influence the behavior of the Israeli government.
2. The U.S. watches China get access to advanced interception missiles and stealth technology.
3. Israel ends up with a major military supplier that is enthusiastic about genocide, rather than seeing it as abhorrent.

China has made lots of flowery pro-palestine-sounding statements but ultimately if you read them, they all say that Israel needs to make a decision to comply with international consensus.

They're pro-palestine when it costs them nothing.

Their statement on Netanyahu was "hopes and prayers, gweilo." 

No really:

&gt; "China hopes the ICC will uphold an objective and just position (and) exercise its powers in accordance with the law,"

Heavily implying that the ICC was not taking an objective position.

The moment there's something they can actually do they're not just neutral but neutral in a way that looks vaguely pro-Israel *just in case* the U.S. blows up the U.S./Israel alliance because they absolutely want to build an iron dome of their own to defend against Rapid Dragon.

And the Palestinians are now extra fucked because there's no longer a democracy that could possibly yield to internal pressures who are Israel's major supplier of mass-produced systems, and the U.S. is mad because China just jumped ahead 20 years in military technology and will swiftly no longer be near-peer but a peer adversary, something the United States hasn't had since, well, whenever Aegis and VLS went into service.

And the U.S. is never going to let that happen.  The ProPals - and we are 100% ignoring the merits and morality of the pro-I/ProPal positions here so I'm not going to call anyone anti-anything - are in the unhappy situation where if they're ever able to affect the outcome of a U.S. election the moment a leader understands what the U.S. stands to lose, they'll drop opposition to funding Israel instantly.

And even if by some miracle they pull it off, Israel has a ton of other options, and they take very advanced capabilities that are home-made to whatever alliance they move towards. 

So at the end of the day there's a best case scenario where it's Japan or Korea they work with, a "this could be worse" scenario where they team up with India who starts talking about neutrality, sovereignty, and being anti-Israel being some sort of pro-colonialism and linking the Muslim invasions of what is now Pakistan with the Muslim invasion of what is now Israel, and it's India with an enthusiastically anti-muslim voting public who become the mass production partner to build Israeli-designed missiles in bulk, or a worst case scenario where China mass produces interceptor missiles, kicking off a region-wide Pacific arms race on pervitin.

But in no scenario does this lead to an improvement of the Palestinian condition.

On a strategic level the Palestinians have never won a single military engagement with the Israelis. Every attempt at every form of violent conflict has ended in loss and a worsening of the conditions of Palestinians.

Throughout it all, Israel has been offering agreements on a two-state solution that Palestinians have said no to. Palestinian leaders have consistently refused to agree to a two state solution for a century.

Palestine's own partners, the Arab League, Jordan, and Egypt have essentially abandoned it. 

And in contrast Israel has always been able to find partners who want to buy what they have and who want access to their tech. Turkey for example, where Baykar and ISI have a partnership, and both were supplying the Azeris in the Nagorno-Karabach war in 2022.

Which I like mentioning because a lot of people are going to think I just made up a bunch of words only to discover that an entire war happened without them hearing about it because our news media is terrible at their one job.

And let me point this out: Turkey is making all these brash, pro-palestine statements while deepening their military cooperation with Israel because everyone in the region are pro-palestinian so long as it doesn't cost them anything.

One of the reasons this war kicked off is that the GCC, Saudi Arabia, and Israel were about to reach a deal on normalizing relations. 

And so all the Arab governments are publicly screaming bloody murder while also finding all these reasons they can't do anything militarily to help and - if you want to Google this it's been widely reported - privately urging Netanyahu to obliterate Hamas at all costs and maybe Hezbollah while you're at it.

There's a reason the Assad government just collapsed. Every power player in the region is mad at Iran over the disruption of gulf trade by the houthis and the disruption of economic and diplomatic normalization by Hamas and Hezbollah and the entire region is on team "fuck Iran and the Axis of Resistance."

And due to very stupid choices made by their political leaders for a century, that includes the Palestinians. Which is tragic. But it's still happening, and there's not much anyone can do to stop it.

But ultimately in this hypothetical, things would be a bit tense while Israel found a new mass-production partner they could do business with, and they probably decide to do business with multiple partners so that there's never a point where they lose access to mass-produced weaponry again.

But it doesn't matter, because Israel has the F-35. And the U.S. is not going to sever ties with a country that has our most advanced 5th Gen fighter and could - if their survival depended on it - trade its secrets to on of our adversaries in exchange for basically the same thing they're getting from the U.S.

OllieGarkey

Israel has the technology and infrastructure to arm itself.  We would probably see them rely up drone more for missions that they currently assign to their air force to conserve munitions and equipment.  You would probably see them license any technology that they don't currently have and start manufacturing their own replacement parts.  You may see them partner up with France or China to make their own jet design and get it manufactured.   Dumb munitions for artillery and tanks they can certainly manufacture for themselves.  So I suppose the net net of this scenario is that Israel will:

* shift its economy to include more defense industries 
* increase taxes to ease the transition 
* enter aerospace more seriously to access fighter planes
* develop better drone weapons platforms
* switch munitions from precision to general purpose

They aren't going to moderate until the neighborhood moderates

Sapriste

No, Israel would take all measures necessary to defend itself. As a Nuclear state thing could and would escalate quickly. They would run out of conventional arms quickly and would have to use whatever means available IMO. I’m not condoning it, but IMO Israel will use all options to *defend* its sovereignty

PM_Me_Ur_Nevermind

Not much would change. They have the most powerful military by far, not just technology but also discipline, training and tactics compared to their neighbors. Plus their economy is strong enough that they could afford to buy their own weapons and ammunition.

d4rkwing

Once upon a time it would have been basically an instant death sentence for Israel but these days they have moved a lot of their defensive and military logistics and infrastructures into independent systems and though the US obviously provides massive strategic value, I think that modern day Israel could probably hold out for a long time or maybe indefinitely and even continue growing. Presented with no comment on geopolitics.

Aztecah

&gt; Would Israel fall as a nation?            
            
Israel is estimated to have 90-400 nukes. If they fall, they won't be the only nation falling.         
           
In the short term they could cripple the economy of Iran preemptively by bombing their oil infrastructure, ports and manufacturing.

DragonPup

Most Arabs have made peace with Israel existing, so they'll probably be fine, specially if they dropped this racist government and started making actual reforms.

Again, not a should/shouldn't aspect but in as State Department stated that the US has a legal obligation to support Israel. I didn't realize that was the case.

Ok-Seaworthiness-542

I can see an impact on the US as well. Both in Ukraine and in Israel the US has the opportunity to field test new technology.

I don't think they'd ever fall seeing how they're "illegedly" a nuclear state. It would probably stop them from projecting much power on surrounding nations. This would either force the US into direct intervention in the middle east or just abandon the region (both of which are unwanted). It'd also force Israel into abiding more to international law and answer for their crimes but that's another story. Think of israel as the US thug that takes all the blame/hate.

Money-Zombie-175

Israel would fall, as it should. The world will be a better place. This has been a vicious land grab, but only for 76 years. Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine must be stopped.

Advaita5358

They would partner with China or Russia to get the resources they need, also USA wouldn't want their tech and Israeli tech to be sold to rivials, the US has too much to lose

ADKiller1

It would actually change basically nothing. What you need to understand is that the vast majority of Middle Eastern countries want to kill each other over reasons entirely independent of the United States of America. 

Israel also has the economic power of a small first world country and therefore wouldn't really need our help to do anything it does now. We are not there, just their arms dealer.

If we stop supplying them today. They could just buy America Arms and Amo for any NATO count it would just cost more.

XxSpaceGnomexx

I don't know how it would change it, but frankly it shouldn't be our primary concern. America is not located in the Middle East.

We should not only stop supporting Israel militarily but financially and politically. It'll never happen as long as they keep paying our politicians with our own money via AIPAC though, unfortunately.

Neither-Following-32

People here keep saying that losing US support would force Israel to be more aggressive, but having less international support usually makes high military spending more difficult; both economically and socially. 

If they tried anyway, Israeli quality of life would decrease significantly as most of their economic output would be going to the meat grinder. Also, people don't like it when their friends and family die. With enough propaganda and political suppression they might pull it off, but that kind of governing is usually unsustainable. 

Afaik the most likely outcome would be to normalize relations with their neighbors and reach a permanent commencewater (think opposites) agreement with Hamas, neither of which would be that difficult or require major changes to Israel's political structure. 

Does this make sense or am I missing something?

Already_Lit

It is totally abnormal that this colony of 7 million Jewish people can rule over a region of over 100 million people. Remember that in 1920, Jewish persons were 11% of the population of Palestine. This type of situation is unsustainable and guarantees endless war and instability. If they stopped propping up Israel, this would lead to a more normal and stable outcome than the existing reality.

ricardus_13

1. Why does the US provide munitions to Israel when Israel can produce them itself? The answer is simple, US aid can only be used to purchase US made weaponry. The US has set conditions restricting Israel from using the aid to acquire munitions from Israeli defense contractors.



2. Why does the US aid Israel? Because the US gains more than Israel. Israeli technology transfer, intelligence sharing of the middle east, bases to park your logistic footprint, influence, leverage, stimulus for the US economy and military industries, and come with string attached often cutting out the competition etc..



3. What happens if the US stops aiding Israel? Israel becomes dependent on its own production line. Israel has its own defense industry and will no longer be required to be under the pressure of US interests. Receiving aid from the US makes Israel committed to US' interests and pressure. The US pressures Israel to not export Israeli made arms to certain countries deemed rogue by the US or hostile to the US. Now how much of revenue is lost annually because of this?



4. Why would the US continue to aid Israel? The aid the US provides to Israel are not free gifts. The US brokered a deal promising aid if Israel returns Sinai back to Egypt. Yes, the US made Israel give up 60,000 km2 of land (3 times bigger than Israel today) promising aid in return. Israel returning the Sinai Peninsular back to Egypt helped facilitate Egypt leaving Soviet’s sphere of influence into US’ sphere of influence thus expanding US influence and arms exports. The Soviet loses a strategic “partner” including arms sales while the US gains a strategic “partner”.



5. Does the US benefit from aiding Israel? Absolutely, Israel battle tested US F-15, F-16 and F-35, promoting US weapons to the world as capable and combat proven thus increasing interests and sales for the US and then sharing operation data of the systems back to the US and the US then develops newer generation aircraft and technologies with these data. Another benefit for the US is that the aid effectively "kills" Israeli military systems that competes with US made systems. The US pressured Israel to cancel Israeli Lavi fighter jet program because the US was afraid it would compete with the US F-16 on the market. So in return the US proposed ongoing aid. You see, the US aid are not free gifts, it's a tool. Some would argue that the US foreign "aid" is economic imperialism with strings attached.



6. What will happen to Israel if the US withdraws all support and isolate Israel? The US stands to lose almost as much as Israel. Russia and China will cozy up to Israel for Israeli cutting edge technology. This will be the US and Europe's biggest nightmare, imagine Russia and China with Israeli made weapons. The US will never allow this to happen.

WarFooting

israel becomes a radioactive wasteland after a year, the remaining Israeli citizens end up having to face the wall and end up getting the bullet in the brain disease. The more popular israeli citizens find their way in some billionaire's sex dungeon. there will be efforts by surrounding nations to get their hands on what little is left of Isreal's nuclear arsenal and you can expect at least one of them falling into hands of some unlucky terrorist who will promptly die after trying to open it to see what's inside and end up exposing himself to radioactive material without any safety equipment.

bhavy111

Israel will go downhill without US support and other western nations. Israel is benefiting from worldwide support and all its population has dual/triple citizenships. They can run away if things get worst.
I dont think neighbours countries will harm it unless they unite and if that happens the whole region will be dragged into an endless cycle of distraction. 
Israel widely benefited from US support and UK government system. Educated Jewish immigrated and build up wealth and manage to control most of the political power acrimony the globe.

Difficult_Ad_5599

Realistically, if every and all US funding would stop in Israel, the Israeli government would have some very difficult choices to make regarding priorities.

A lot of the costs of Israel’s prosperity when it comes to socialized healthcare and other social safety nets, as well as its immigration program are offset by US subsidization of Israel’s military. So any US retraction from the area would lead to a sharp decline in quality of life for Israelis if they were to even try to meet the same military spending they have now.

And even then, funding a huge military and spy agency is expensive in peace time, and even more so when you are occupying territories of a large group of people who do not wish to be a part of your ethnocentric theocratic regime. It would be significantly more difficult for Israel to continue funding its wars and military operations the way it does currently, and it may even be open for attack from its neighbors which have a lot of resentment over recent history.

Overall, Israel would have to continue on its path of being a Middle Eastern nation with friendlier relations with its neighbors, and would probably have to become a lot more open to Palestinian freedom, either through passing equal rights legislation (including the right to return and equal voting rights), or more likely given the state of Israeli and Palestinian societies, they would have to grant some degree of Palestinian independence.

Israel would not be able to put itself out there as the big kid on the block, and would instead have to act like a normal middle eastern country.

Ana_Na_Moose

They would certainly be weakened, but it is important to remember that Israel DOES have nuclear weapons; numerous sources believe they have “nuclear triad” delivery capabilities as well. 

This isn’t me taking a stance for or against Israel, but I must say… it’s extremely odd that Israel’s nuclear arsenal is just this open secret; if it was any other nation, there would be a shitstorm of controversy.

Tygonol

Israel would get attacked a lot, there would be a lot more October 7th type terrorist attacks. Things could even ramp up to the point of Israel's entire existence being threatened. I say this as someone heavily critical of the actions of Israel especially the current Netanyahu government.

futuristic69

It's economy would shrink unless they reduce military spending. The current wars are already affecting the nation's economy. 
They still have nuclear weapons. No one will try to invade them.

1QAte4

Considering they “secretly” have nukes… my guess would be some terrorist asshats wou use religious fundamentalism to stir up some shit and various Muslim states would try and redo the 1948 Arab Israel war, which would prompt Israel to use their nukes in self defense, then really bad things would happen.

Lovebeingadad54321

Most aid from the US to Israel is weapons systems  All those U S  companies and workers would lose billions. It's really dual purpose, helping the only democracy in the Middle East, jobs for us workers. Israel would survive cause our aid is a small % of its GNP.

slummingmummy

I agree with some of the comments that Israel would become more aggressive with all of its neighbors without the US funding the iron dome.

pegLegP3t3

Let’s not forget the diplomatic cover the U.S. provides to Israel, especially through UNSC vetoes and other forms of international support. In many ways, that is just as critical—if not more so—than direct military assistance.

Consider a scenario where the majority of the international community, even excluding the U.S., imposed an embargo on Israel akin to what was done to Apartheid South Africa. Such a move could exert significant pressure on Israel to reconsider its current policies.

It’s difficult to envision a situation where the U.S. would cease military assistance while continuing to provide full diplomatic backing. A more plausible scenario might involve the U.S. maintaining military aid but allowing the international community to exercise its collective will. This approach would enable the U.S. to argue that it’s not interfering with Israel’s ability to defend itself, while simultaneously stepping back from shielding Israel from global consensus.

siali

Imagine that Trump announced that Netanyahu was a liar and a cheat, and Trump could not work with him. He was going to cut off all aid to Israel unless Netanyahu stepped down.

Presumably Netanyahu would hold on, and I assume he would quickly get a vote of no confidence. Then he gets lawsuits etc, and possibly is out of politics for life -- but maybe not.  Israel then follows somebody else, and I can't predict how it would go. People talk like there's a consensus in favor of genocide and that genocidal parties would be the new coalition, but that might be propaganda. Or maybe not. 

So, try it the other way. Netanyahu defies Trump, and Israel goes along with him. Trump then must carry out his bluff. Would the Senate and the media crucify him for it? Gruesome stories to convince the public that without immediate US aid Israel will be genocided, millions of Jewish babies killed, millions of Jewish women raped and killed, the Holocaust all over? Would he be immediately impeached? So many congressmen blackmailed by Israel that they had no choice about it? I don't know, but for the purpose of the story let's assume that the end of military aid actually happened. 

There is an unknown amount of US military supplies stored in Israel. The agreement was that we were keeping them there in case we needed them someday, but Israel could use them any time it wanted to. Would we try to take them out of Israel? Would we try to defend that base if Israel started taking the supplies? Are those supplies already gone, used up for the year-long attack on Gaza? I just don't know. 

Various people connected with the US military would send the supplies anyway, and just not mention it to Trump. When the news got out, that would potentially trigger a big argument about which ones are the traitors? The ones who supply Israel, or the ones who tattle on them? Again for the sake of the story I will assume that the USA wins that fight and US Zionists lose. So the USA increasingly turns against Israel.

Israeli companies in the USA that make weapons for Israel would promise that they had stopped. They are now creating weapons for Chad. But when it turns out the weapons are in fact going to Israel and not Chad, those companies get shut down.

Lots of anti-Israel propaganda starts getting reported in US media. Just because it's true doesn't keep it from being anti-Israel propaganda. The parallels between Israel and Nazi Germany start getting displayed. A small hi-tech society surrounded by enemies who hate them, who believes that peaceful coexistence is not possible, that their only chance to survive comes from victory. Threatened by an alien ideology that cannot compromise. (Communism/Islam) That believes they must be ruthless and do whatever is necessary to win against far superior numbers. That needs lebensraum and won early extreme victories using blitzkrieg warfare until their enemies learned to defend against that. 

So USA stops vetoing UN proposals. Israel's foreign trade dwindles. This is a serious concern because they have no oil and essentially no coal. And their agriculture isn't enough. They say they're self-sufficient, but what they mean is that they sell enough oranges and flowers to buy the food they need. They have to import considerable wheat.

But they have nukes and the implicit threat to use them. Would Trump and Putin make an agreement about that? If Israel uses nukes on *anybody*, they both nuke Israel? Not that anybody wants that to happen, they just don't want Israel to nuke anybody. If Iran gets nukes various other countries will too. Everybody would be better off if the middle-east became a nuclear-free zone, but it can't. If one more country there gets nukes then it's everybody trying not to be last. If we could make Israel's nukes irrelevant, maybe Iran wouldn't get nukes? And if it's the USA and Russia agreeing, then maybe one of us wouldn't nuke Israel, but they definitely wouldn't nuke the other one for doing it. Four bombs could kill 80% of Israel. One relatively low one could destroy most Israeli civilian electronics and disrupt their economy even worse than everything up to that point. 

The USA would have a responsibility to Israeli civilians. Presumably we would make it easy for any Jewish Israelis to come live in the USA. They shouldn not be stuck where they must win by any means or die. And whether that was their reality before, it would come increasingly close to being real.

Isn't it plausible that somewhere along the line Trump would be assassinated and it would look like an Iranian agent did it? Would Americans believe that, or would they believe it was Mossad? Would that interfere with the USA inviting all Mossad agents to come to the USA? 

If lots of Israelis left, the remainder would have a harder time of it. If the USA did not act to prevent boycot and sanctions by other countries, that would hurt the Israeli economy. Eventually they would attempt an attack intended to handle their enemies once and for all, and that attack would be stalled. The fanatical remnant which believed they must win or die and never retreat to the USA, seeing they could not win, may do something desperate. Nukes and get nuked? Release some deadly disease among arab nations? A false flag attack intended to start a big nuclear war between USA and USSR? Potent carcinogens and teratogens spread in US cities? Maybe they might give up and come to the USA. 

The central problem is that they think they must win or die, and the more ruthless they get the more that belief comes true. The world needs them to have some better choice available, but it's very hard to find one they can accept.

jethomas5

Well things could get ugly. No doubt they’d lose military power and that could mean they’d be more willing to resort to desperate measures like nuclear weapons. But most likely they’d do business with China and that’s pretty bad for the US. The fact is we haven’t always been allies with Israel and they survived. So maybe not much changes besides continued destabilization of the Middle East.

PennywiseLives49

Snip snap snip snap 


You have no idea the physical toll that 3 vasectomies has on foreign policy

ApolloHimself

Just in time to deploy to Gaza!

I’m sure ISIS won’t do anything to take advantage of US forces leaving

omnipresent_sailfish

coco_brotha

Kind of shocked by the number of warhawks in these comments. I lost a few buddies in Syria. I don’t think we should be there anymore. The new Syrian government seems promising. 

When we were kicking out ISIS we were still running missions out of Iraq. We still have people there, we don’t need to be people in Syria

BootySk8r

IHeartSm3gma

We have been there for too long. Whatever issues plague the Middle East they cant be solved militarily. These are socio-economic &amp; political issues that they need to figure out that we can’t control.

S4LTYSgt

Good. I'm tired of fighting other people's wars. It's unwinnable militarily unless we go scorched earth. So either do that or gtfo

impalas86924

The new normal. “Whiplash” foreign policy. Allies hang their heads in despair while our enemies cheer. Words mean nothing. The whims of a bitter, ego-centric old man supersede the constitution and the well-being of a nation.

EliteGuineaPig

They were saying around 2025 cutting sling load.  Guess it’s happening

abualethkar

Ah, the PTSD inducer is finally going away

YourBigRosie

Now that Assad is gone, this seems like a reasonable move.

You would think by this point in our recent history, we would’ve learned what it means to overstay our welcome in the Middle East.

UJMRider1961

NoDrama3756

Just so he can move them to Israel and the Gaza Strip.

DiegoElM

eh, its more of a strategic movement into Gaza

RootbeerninjaII

Oh finally. Was never a fan of hauling their mail.

Lanky_Requirement831

Some will decry this as us betraying the Kurds. I really feel for them. But, sadly, the US government has no interest in championing a Kurdish state. The hard truth is that a friendly Turkey is worth to the US than the Kurds ever could be.

So if/when ISIS gets totally stamped out, US troops would leave eventually anyway right? With the threat gone, how do we justify an eternal, American presence? There has to be a clear endstate in mind.

ByzantineBomb

This would be good news if we weren’t simultaneously sending troops to Gaza in short order.

WallStreetBoots

I guess they are going to be redeployed for Operation Rivera in Gaza.

Seeksp

Mark my works: the CIC says this and will somehow backtrack, just like he said he’d withdraw from Rojava

low-spirited-ready

Yet again Trump is trying to abandon the kurds.. again… I really hope the new Syrian government decides to accept them to stave off turkey from doing what turkey does

Nickblove

Yellow bellied idiots strike again.....

Being everyone back, we need more for Operation Sav-a-Junkie on the Mexican border......

Dave_A480

WinnerSpecialist

Arrowx1

Now pull us out of POLAND!!!!! Sitting in a tent all day and night ain’t it.

RichFinish

LeadRain

Defeatedcheese

007_MM

Is this gonna be another shit plan from Trump and Peter that will have to fall under the next democratic president  then he gets blamed for trumps shit plan

wonkydonkey212

I’m sure all the units who are now not going to Syria will still be going to JRTC though.

Wistful_Layman

Ravevon

EnvironmentalBee6654

This is about to piss off a ton of people in my state who had a combat deployment canceled on them the last time they were supposed to go, retention is about to be in the shitter (again) since they refused to sign an extension longer than the minimum required to make it through deployment.

zachc133

OPSEC won’t let me say much… but the timing of this is absolutely catastrophic for me.

CantaloupeNo6590

Kind-Recording3450

The United States is partially evacuating its embassy in Iraq and allowing military dependents to leave the Middle East amid rising tensions with Iran.

US-Iran Tensions and Troop Withdrawal

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want