Codependent Destruction: The US-Israeli Death Spiral

The recent missiles screaming across Middle Eastern skies tell a story older than either Israel or America. As Iranian ballistic missiles pierce Israeli defenses and Israeli jets pummel Tehran’s nuclear facilities, we’re witnessing what historian Ilan Pappe calls the “last phase” of Zionism—a final, desperate attempt to complete through violence what decades of politics could not achieve. But this isn’t just about Israel. It’s about two declining powers locked in what may be history’s most dangerous codependent relationship.

With Iranian missiles targeting Israeli cities and Donald Trump’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, America and Israel have become what imperial historians recognize as a classic pattern: allied powers spiraling toward mutual destruction, each escalation making retreat more impossible and survival less likely.

This is what imperial decline looks like when empires can no longer retreat.

Defining the Final Phase

Pappe’s framework of “neo-Zionism” provides the crucial lens for understanding this moment. Unlike the secular nationalism of classical Zionism, neo-Zionism represents something far more dangerous: “more extreme, far more aggressive form than they were before, trying to achieve in a short time what the previous generation of Zionists were trying to achieve in [a] much longer, more, incremental, gradual way.”

This isn’t simply intensification—it’s transformation. Academic research reveals a post-1967 shift from pragmatic state-building to messianic territorialism, from refuge-seeking to empire-building. Where classical Zionism sought accommodation within existing international structures, neo-Zionism explicitly rejects them. The movement now claims not just historical Palestine but regional hegemony, backed by biblical mandate and military superiority.

The American parallel is equally stark. Where previous administrations sought to manage Middle Eastern conflicts, Trump’s approach mirrors neo-Zionist logic: maximum pressure, military solutions, rejection of diplomatic constraints. When Israeli officials say “the whole operation is premised on the fact that the US will join at some point,” they’re describing not an alliance but mutual dependence for survival.

Both movements now exhibit what imperial historians call “final phase” characteristics: making impossible territorial claims, resorting to military solutions for political problems, and rejecting international law. Rome’s late-imperial expansion into Germania. Britain’s desperate grip on India. America and Israel’s current trajectory follows the same pattern—powers attempting through force what they can no longer achieve through consent.

The Codependent Alliance: From Strategic to Existential

The U.S.-Israel relationship didn’t begin as existential codependency. Truman recognized Israel in 1948 but refused to send weapons during the Arab-Israeli War. Dwight Eisenhower threatened to expel Israel from the UN in 1957. Even John F. Kennedy, who coined the term “special relationship,” demanded nuclear inspections in exchange for defensive weapons.

The transformation began in 1967. Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War coincided with America’s deepening entanglement in Vietnam, creating mutual need: Israel as America’s Middle Eastern proxy, America as Israel’s global protector. What began as a strategic convenience evolved into an ideological synthesis.

The religious dimension proved crucial. Christian Zionism provided theological justification for what might otherwise appear as cynical power politics. Both movements now deploy biblical narratives—American exceptionalism meets Jewish return to Zion—to justify imperial projects that violate international law and democratic norms.

Today, this alliance consumes $310 billion in total American aid since Israel’s founding, while providing Israel with diplomatic immunity for actions that would trigger sanctions against any other state. Israeli technology tested on Palestinians gets deployed against American protesters. American weapons systems get field-tested in Gaza and Lebanon. The relationship has become extractive: each partner now depends on the other’s escalation to justify its extremism.

As Pappe notes, this represents a new phase of alliance building based on shared Islamophobia rather than shared democratic values. Both movements now “see Israel as the most important anti-Islamic anti-Arab force in the world.” The enemy defines the alliance more than any positive vision.

Imperial Overreach: The Historical Pattern

What we’re witnessing isn’t unprecedented—it’s predictable. Historical analysis reveals consistent patterns across civilizations. Sir John Glubb, the British general-scholar, documented how empires follow remarkably similar trajectories: approximately 250 years from rise to fall, ending in what he called “the ruthless phase”—a frantic attempt to preserve power through violence rather than adaptation.

Murrin’s analysis confirms this pattern: “For an empire in the final throes of overextension, the cost of power vastly outweighs its economic benefit.” Imperial sustainability becomes unfeasible, leading to increasingly desperate military adventures that accelerate rather than prevent collapse.

America exhibits every classic late-imperial symptom. Military bases everywhere, but victory nowhere. Financial dependence on rivals (Chinese debt holdings). Internal polarization is destroying institutional legitimacy. Alliance with other declining powers while rising powers organize alternatives.

Israel’s trajectory parallels this decline. A state initially seeking secure borders within international law now demands biblical territories through military conquest. A movement that once claimed only refuge now insists on regional hegemony. Settlement expansion continues despite global condemnation, judicial overhaul proceeds despite domestic resistance, and military solutions replace diplomatic engagement across all conflicts.

The current missile exchanges with Iran represent this dynamic perfectly. Israel’s nuclear attack wasn’t defensive—it was preventive empire-building, attempting to preserve military superiority through escalation. Iran’s missile barrages represent the same logic from the opposing side: both powers believe they can still win through force what they’ve lost through diplomacy.

But the costs are unsustainable. Israel’s missile defense costs $285 million per night. Iran is depleting its ballistic missile arsenal. Both sides are discovering that modern precision weapons make every escalation more expensive and less decisive than the last.

The Death Spiral Dynamic

What makes this alliance particularly dangerous is how each partner’s extremism enables the other’s. This isn’t traditional alliance behavior—it’s mutual radicalization masquerading as a strategic partnership.

Israeli military actions create justification for American defense contracts. The Gaza war generated demand for American surveillance technology and crowd-control weapons. Iran’s missile attacks create markets for American missile defense systems. American diplomatic protection enables Israeli territorial expansion that would otherwise trigger international intervention.

Conversely, American global struggles create opportunities for Israeli regional dominance. U.S. difficulties with China and Russia give Israel freer rein in Middle Eastern conflicts. American domestic polarization prevents coherent criticism of Israeli policies. American imperial overreach creates demand for reliable regional proxies willing to act without congressional oversight.

The pattern is self-reinforcing. Each side’s escalation justifies the other’s extremism. Israeli settlement expansion justifies American accusations of Palestinian “terrorism.” American military support justifies Israeli claims that Palestinian resistance threatens Western civilization. Both movements now depend on permanent conflict to justify their existence.

The current Iran crisis exemplifies this dynamic perfectly. Israel’s nuclear attack could never succeed without American diplomatic protection and technological support. But American involvement risks a regional war that could destroy both the dollar’s global dominance and Israel’s military supremacy. Trump’s decision to join Israel militarily has resolved the bind, but in the most dangerous possible way. American participation has now guaranteed both nations’ entanglement in a regional war with no exit strategy.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s promise that U.S. involvement would bring “irreparable damage” has now been tested—Iran’s measured but largely symbolic strike on a U.S. base demonstrated restraint while signaling that escalation remains entirely possible. Iran retains the capacity to close the Strait of Hormuz, attack American bases across the region, and activate proxy forces from Lebanon to Yemen to Iraq. American military intervention didn’t guarantee Israeli victory; it made possible American entanglement in a regional conflict with no clear resolution.

Meanwhile, political opposition is mounting within Trump’s base. “Drop Israel,” demand America First activists. “I can tell you right now, our MAGA base does not want a war at all whatsoever,” warns Charlie Kirk. Even Trump supporters recognize that another Middle Eastern war could destroy the presidency that promised to end them.

But retreat may no longer be possible. The logic of escalation has its momentum. Israeli officials believed American participation was inevitable—and they were right. Iranian leaders have now prepared for sustained regional confrontation. Both sides position their populations for prolonged conflict while their economies strain under military spending that crowds out everything else.

Global Realignment: The World is Moving On

While America and Israel spiral toward regional war, the rest of the world is organizing alternatives. The BRICS expansion now includes most major economies outside the Western alliance. China and Russia coordinate on a wide range of issues, including energy, currency, and military technology. Even traditional American allies hedge their bets with alternative partnerships.

Saudi Arabia, despite the Abraham Accords, maintains diplomatic relations with Iran and China. Turkey pursues independent policies that often diverge from those of NATO. European nations are increasingly criticizing both Israeli policies and American unilateralism while developing their autonomous defense capabilities.

Pappe’s observation proves prescient: “We need international intervention not only in Palestine but for the whole Arab world, but it has to come from the Global South and not from the Global North.” The infrastructure for leadership in the Global South already exists. South-South trade is growing, while trans-Atlantic commerce is stagnating. Alternative payment systems reduce dollar dependence. Regional organizations offer forums for cooperation that exclude Western participation.

The current crisis accelerates these trends. Every missile fired between Iran and Israel demonstrates America’s inability to manage regional conflicts. Every act of American military intervention reminds other nations why they need alternatives to Western-dominated institutions. Every escalation proves that an alliance with America or Israel carries unacceptable risks.

China watches from the sidelines as potential rivals exhaust themselves in unwinnable conflicts. Russia benefits from higher energy prices and increased demand for alternative partnerships. India maintains relations with all sides while building its sphere of influence. The multipolar world emerges not through grand design, but through the self-destruction of the United States and Israel.

This represents what Pappe calls the “decolonization of a settler-colonial project”—not just Palestinian liberation but global liberation from Western imperial dominance. The same forces demanding justice for Gaza now demand justice for Ukraine, Yemen, and Kashmir. The same movements challenging Israeli settlements challenge American bases, Chinese authoritarianism, and Russian expansion.

The missile exchanges over Middle Eastern skies signal something larger: the end of the unipolar moment when American power could guarantee Israeli impunity. That world is disappearing, regardless of whether further escalation occurs.

The Historical Verdict

Imperial historians recognize this pattern because they’ve seen it before. Powers that cannot adapt to changing circumstances attempt to preserve dominance through force, accelerating the very decline they seek to prevent. Rome’s expansion into Germania. Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. Nazi Germany’s simultaneous wars against Britain, Russia, and America. Imperial Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.

Each case follows similar logic: declining powers making desperate gambles that transform manageable challenges into existential crises. Each believed military action could restore what political change had undermined. Each discovered that violence absent legitimacy creates more problems than it solves.

America and Israel now face the same choice: adapt to a multipolar reality or attempt to impose unipolar dominance through force. The current trajectory suggests they’ve chosen force. The missile exchanges between Iran and Israel, Trump’s military intervention, and the complete breakdown of diplomatic alternatives—all confirm that wider war has replaced any possibility of a negotiated settlement.

But history also teaches that such choices rarely end well for their architects. The powers that survive imperial transitions are those that manage decline gracefully, preserving core interests while abandoning imperial overreach. Those who attempt to arrest decline through military adventure typically accelerate their destruction.

Whether measured in dollars, shekels, or lives, the current trajectory is unsustainable. American military spending diverts resources that could be allocated to infrastructure, education, and economic development. Israeli military spending hinders investment in civilian sectors that could lead to sustainable economic growth and prosperity. Both nations now rely on conflict economies that necessitate the existence of permanent enemies.

The rest of the world is building the future while America and Israel fight the past. Clean energy development is progressing the fastest in China and India, and digital infrastructure advances most rapidly in Asia and Africa. Cultural production is increasingly flowing from the Global South to the Global North, rather than in the reverse direction.

Pappe’s prediction that this represents “the last phase of Zionism” extends beyond Palestine to the entire Western imperial project. Not because of military defeat—though that remains possible—but because of political exhaustion. Populations grow tired of paying imperial costs for diminishing imperial benefits. Allies grow weary of following leaders toward military adventures that serve narrow interests rather than collective security.

The missiles screaming across Middle Eastern skies announce the end of an era. Whether that ending proves catastrophic or merely painful depends on choices being made in Washington and Tel Aviv. But the era itself is already over.

The world is moving on. The question is whether America and Israel will join that movement or attempt to destroy it through violence that ensures their destruction. History suggests the latter choice leads nowhere worth going.

Every school board meeting, every congressional vote, every act of civil courage now carries unprecedented stakes. We’re not just arguing about foreign policy—we’re deciding whether democratic societies can still constrain leaders bent on imperial suicide. But now we can see the enemy clearly: not just failed policies, but the imperial logic that produces them.

 

Source: https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/codependent-destruction-the-us-israeli-death-spiral/