3 ms·
This is a hotly debated topic. The John Mearsheimer view is that "The Lobby" [1] has effective control over US foreign policy. There's a lot of evidence for th
by jmyeet 5mo ago
This is a hotly debated topic.
The John Mearsheimer view is that "The Lobby" [1] has effective control over US foreign policy. There's a lot of evidence for this such as AIPAC indirectly unseating anti-Israel candidates. The Thomas Massie primary was the most expensive in history. $35 million. For a primary.
Noam Chomsky on the other hand rejects the notion of "the lobby" [2], instead arguing that Israel is an tool of American imperialism. Then-US Secretary of STate of Alexander Haig is widely believed to have described Israel as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" [3] in a resource-rich region even though that term originated in the Pacific in WW2. The US has had an interest in disrupting Pan-Arab Nationalism [4], preferring a divided Middle East to guarantee access to oil.
The truth lies somewhere in between. There are clearly material interests and the US could shut down Israel in a day if it so chose. But the US has taken actions that clearly aren't in its national interest and the perfect example is the current Iran war.
Under no circumstances was this ever going to end well. The military knew it. General Caine tried to stop it when Trump didn't heed his warnings [5]. The US intelligence community was against it. also saying Iran wasn't developing a nuclear weapon [6]. Trump instead listened to Miriam Adelson, Benjamin Netanyahu and Mossad, who collectively (allegedly) convinced him it would be a Venezuela-like regime change operation.
This move will (IMHO) go down as the largest strategic blunder in US history and it will reshape geopolitics in the Gulf, Europe and Asia for decades. Even other wars that were lost (eg Vietnam, Korea) didn't have this kind of impact. The US could essentially walk away from those at little cost.
My point is that you can't take the Chomsky view as this being purely materialist. It just doesn't fit the evidence.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Fore...
[2]: https://mondoweiss.net/2011/02/chomsky-materialism-and-the-israel-lobby-thesis/ https://mondoweiss.net/2011/02/chomsky-materialism-and-the-i...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsinkable_aircraft_carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsinkable_aircraft_carrier
[4]: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12/d35 https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12...
[5]: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/25/politics/caine-iran-hegseth-trump https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/25/politics/caine-iran-hegse...
[6]: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-intel-community-agreed-before-war-iran-wasnt-developing-nuclear-weapon-ex-counterterrorism-chief https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-intel-community-agreed-b...
- marcosdumay 5mo agoHum... I don't think Chomsky's opinion on the matter has any relevance at all. He's there right at the Lobby. We have no way at all of knowing he's saying it doesn't matter because he saw it doesn't matter, or because it dictates what he says.
- watwut 5mo agoJohn Mearsheimer fully discredited himself around the start of Ukrainian war.
- throwaway27448 5mo agoHow do you figure?
- hackandthink 5mo agoMearsheimer was right: Putin wrecks Ukraine. https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-t...
- sehansen 4mo agoWhy would an article from 2019 be a counterargument to criticisms from 2022? Especially when the first sentence of that article is a prime example of Mearsheimers blind spot: that the Russians aren't actually realists, but instead are a kind of idealist focused on Russias dignity as a (percieved) great power. Almost like virtue ethics as opposed to the consequentionalist ethics of realism.