[beagle3]

The right context is the cold war. For a long time, Israel was the ONLY dependably-US friendly country in the middle east. Almost all the others (Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, ...) were, in the context of the cold war, soviet outposts. Their army was trained by the soviet union, all their arms supplied by soviet union, and high ranking soviets were roaming all around. The other US-friendly middle east countries like Saudi Arabia did not have a meaningful army or fighting ability, and were unable to make any difference if the cold war ever heated in the middle east (which was not improbable).

In that context, US support for Israel was a cheap hedge against soviet domination of middle east - everything else is secondary. Furthermore, that support came (and still does) with strings attached - almost all of it must be spent in the US (and I am sure some of it is/was specifically earmarked, even if it isn't official). So you also get to divert money to your military-industrial pals, get a bunch of right wing and jewish americans feeling good -- and get some investment in an anti-soviet force. Isn't that a good deal?

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with what the US is doing in Iraq, both wars were much helped by Israel's experience fighting the soviet war doctrine (which is what iraqi defense/offense was based on; Israel had experience with it fighting Syria and at an earlier stage, Egypt).

[jbooth]

Overstating it a bit WRT Egypt, Iraq, Iran. They played both sides to get the best deal they could, sometimes that was the soviets, sometimes that was us, but notably there was no period where all 3 were sponsored by the soviets at the same time, and more notably they weren't reliable proxies for either side - always kept their own interests first. Egypt even managed to split the US from Britain during the Suez Canal war.

Egypt - entirely US armed after 78

Iran - entirely US/British armed prior to 79

Iraq - a mix but very US-supported post-79 and a pariah to all post-91 (with a few covert non-soviet Russian arms).

Syria - Pragmatist dictator who never happened to line up with us.

Libya - The only case here where the leader actually had an ideological disposition towards the soviets (but only a little)

I agree with your take on the motivations for US aid at that time, though.

One other caveat, Israel did help train US forces but it was their experiences in Lebanon and Palestine that helped, not those with Syria and Egypt. Syria and Egypt had/have iraq-like armies of medium-quality gear and poor quality conscripts, that's conventional warfare. It was the nonconventional stuff that they helped train US troops for on the way to Iraq.

[beagle3]

I shouldn't have lumped Iran with the rest of them, you are right about that -- it is a completely different story. I stand corrected.

But I don't think I was overstating when I claimed

> Israel was the ONLY dependably-US friendly country in the middle east

Look at your own dates: that's 30 years (1948 till 1978) in which Israel was almost the only middle eastern country WITHOUT soviet influence -- and one that's strategically positioned near the Suez canal.

We are not in disagreement about the reasons, only about the magnitude.

Re: training experience - I've heard differently from people who were involved. "Conventional war" is still not a standard thing, and knowledge of your enemies' doctrine is golden. From what I heard, the whole Iraqi doctrine in '91 (where you put your defense tanks, how you back out when outnumbered, how you plan your battlefield supply chain, how you plan ambushes, etc) was almost exactly the same as Syria's '67, and getting all that info from the Israeli army made life much easier for the US Army.

(For all I know, this was self-glorification and/or disinformation from the Israeli side, but it was supported by supposedly knowledgeable US people I inquired with)

[cletus]

I'm not sure I agree with that reasoning, not directly anyway. The timing is certainly right but there are two major problems with that theory:

1. The Soviet Union from WW2 to the fall in 1990 never had diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis were allied with the US certainly in the 1980s (possibly earlier?) and supported the resistance of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan; and

2. The cooling of relations between the US and the Arab world did have--and still has--a lot to do with the US support of totalitarian regimes, including the Saudis. The US enjoyed strong relations with the Shah of Iran and then with Saddam Hussein in a proxy war with the USSR.

Only 2% of the US population might be Jewish but Jewish political support is significant for a number of reasons:

1. It affects what are now key swing states, most notably Florida;

2. The general political activism and even affluence of that population segment; and

3. The cause of Israel aligns with that of religious (Christian) conservatives, largely because of the Holy Land.

Bear in mind that the dynamic has changed. Modern US administrations virtually can't criticize Israel. Compare this to Eisenhower telling Israel to get out of Sinai.

Attributing this to the Cold War, instability of regimes in the Middle East and Soviet tendencies (IMHO) varies from disingenuous to factually inaccurate.