Israeli actions have the cover of ‘moral hazard’ − a touch of ambiguity might give US pressure greater weight
By Charles Walldorf, Wake Forest University,
8 hours ago
Sometimes, superpowers have a hard time getting smaller allies to do what they want with the assistance they provide. Often, it is to the detriment of the larger power’s interests.
The United States has faced a fair bit of this in recent decades. In Africa, U.S. partners Chad , Niger and Burkina Faso have diverted U.S. security assistance and training intended for counterterrorism toward suppression of political opponents, or for military coups that undermined human rights and only increased the risk of terrorism .
Political scientists have a term that covers this phenomenon: moral hazard. It defines a dynamic whereby a great power’s commitment to protect an ally with a revisionist streak – that is, a wayward ally seeking to alter the status quo or shake up the settled order– insulates the ally from the risks of its own behavior, thus encouraging reckless actions.
As an expert on alliances and the Middle East region , I know the costs to the United States have already been high , and will almost certainly go higher if Israel continues to escalate hostilities – potentially bringing Iran into a hot war from its position largely on the sidelines. What appears to be lacking in the U.S.’s inability to have Israel accede to its pleas to de-escalate is another geopolitical concept that has, it is argued, worked elsewhere: strategic ambiguity .
No dent in US’s ironclad support
The two core components to moral hazard – an ally seeking to alter the status quo and a firm great-power pledge to that ally’s defense – stand at the center of the U.S.-Israel relationship.
This mix of a rock-solid U.S. security pledge and Israeli intent to utterly degrade its enemies is, I believe, fueling a moral hazard that sees Israeli actions seemingly at odds with U.S. wishes.
The U.S. government has expressed frustration with the Israeli government’s refusal to listen to its much larger ally. But at the same time, Washington has done very little to suggest that it would ever dent its resolve to protect Israel, no matter what.
And a higher cost may come. From the outset, there have been fears that the conflict in Gaza could lead to a full-blown regional war, with Iran entering the fighting in a meaningful way.
The point isn’t whether Israel is right or wrong in defending itself, but that it is acting without the apparent consent of the U.S., and often against Washington’s expressed wishes. Moreover, Israel is doing so knowing its actions will do nothing to erode the U.S. protection that insulates Israel from the full consequences of its actions.
So, what would mitigate this geopolitical moral hazard? The answer, I believe, is strategic ambiguity . When great powers make their commitments to allies more ambiguous, allies are forced to think twice about behaving in ways that may be reckless.
In the early 2000s, the Bush administration tightened its commitment to defend Taiwan against an invasion by Communist China and enhance Taipei’s sense of security. The move backfired; Taiwan’s president, Chen Shui-bian, used the U.S. pledge to start a campaign for Taiwanese independence, which significantly ratcheted up tension with China and for a time deepened hostility between Beijing and Washington.
To tamp down Taiwanese moral hazard, the Bush administration moved back to the strategic ambiguity that had governed the U.S.’s China policy since the 1970s . Bush did this by publicly stating in 2003 his opposition to changing the status quo by either China or Taiwan. He then refused to specify what constituted a violation of the status quo or what the U.S. would do to stop it.
The ambiguity worked: Taiwan backed away from independence, and tensions with China calmed.
Taiwan-style strategic ambiguity might, I believe, offer a better model for the Middle East today. Replacing the current “ironclad” commitment to defend Israel no matter what with a less certain pledge where the U.S. merely “ reserves the right ” to defend Israel at the U.S.’s choosing might provide more heft to the warnings against escalation uttered in Washington but so far ignored in Israel.
This article is republished from The Conversation , a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Charles Walldorf , Wake Forest University
Get updates delivered to you daily. Free and customizable.
It’s essential to note our commitment to transparency:
Our Terms of Use acknowledge that our services may not always be error-free, and our Community Standards emphasize our discretion in enforcing policies. As a platform hosting over 100,000 pieces of content published daily, we cannot pre-vet content, but we strive to foster a dynamic environment for free expression and robust discourse through safety guardrails of human and AI moderation.
Comments / 0