An Ungrateful Ally

The paleocons are back. Andrew Cusack writes:

Last week the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem woke up to find that every single one of its bank accounts had been frozen by the Municipality of Jerusalem. The Patriarchate runs churches, pilgrim sites, schools, hospices, and other charitable institutions but suddenly found itself unable to buy even a cup of coffee, let alone pay clergy stipends and workers’ salaries or settle bills. This drastic measure from city authorities is the latest in the dispute over the arnona property tax — a municipal levy that has never before been applied to properties used for religious or charitable purposes in Jerusalem.

The Patriarchate is no stranger to paying property taxes: it is one of the biggest landowners in the Holy Land — even Israel’s parliament, the Knesset itself, sits on land that belongs to this diocese that claims its foundation from the Apostle James. But the complex situation of the numerous church bodies in Jerusalem has long been subject to an important understanding between them and the State of Israel: Church-owned properties would be taxed when they are used for commercial, non-religious, or non-social functions, but the places of worship and charitable or educational properties are exempt from arnona.

The controversy first flared in 2018, when then-mayor Nir Barkat claimed that the Christian churches of Jerusalem owed over £131 million in property taxes for properties that had always been understood as exempt. In response, the Catholic, Orthodox, and Armenian churches united to close the Church of the Holy Sepulchre indefinitely, forcing a temporary climb-down by the city authorities.

Under Israeli law, municipalities can freeze bank accounts instantly, without requiring a court order or reference to national or banking authorities. Yet in all the centuries of Ottoman, British, Jordanian, and Israeli administration, no such tax has ever been levied on properties dedicated to religious or charitable use. The churches maintain that, as religious bodies sustaining schools, hospitals, welfare programmes, and other charitable works, they perform a vital role in the life of the city. If anything, they argue, these works should be supported rather than burdened with unprecedented financial demands.

The reach of the dispute extends beyond Jerusalem: Municipalities in Tel Aviv, Nazareth, and Ramle have also attempted to expand the arnona to properties historically exempt from it. While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office has pressed local authorities to back away from the churches, the municipalities insist the responsibility lies entirely within their jurisdiction and is neither a national nor international matter. Despite this, Israel’s handling of this case has now been handed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but both the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate and foreign diplomats report the MFA has been sluggish in acting to persuade the city to reverse course.

So far, none of the other churches has had its accounts frozen but the pressure is mounting. The Armenian Patriarchate received a tax demand that the bishop in charge of finances was surprised to see included properties neither owned by the Armenian church nor connected to it. Their legal challenge to the city’s attempted foreclosures, originally set to be heard in February, has been postponed until September. The Franciscans, custodians of the Holy Land’s Catholic sites since the fourteenth century, are under similar pressure, adding to the many headaches the newly installed custos Fr Francesco Ielpo OFM will have to face.

Last year, the heads of the churches wrote to Netanyahu offering dialogue to seek a solution. In a July 2024 meeting with Jerusalem’s mayor, Moshe Leon, they explained and reiterated their position and the Mayor provided them with an assurance the municipality would not act unilaterally. Yet on 6 August 2025, the Patriarchate’s accounts were frozen.

This dispute is not merely local in character. Jerusalem is sacred to three world religions, and its Christian presence has long been safeguarded by complex international arrangements. The Status Quo agreements, formulated to halt disputes between the Christian communities as well as elaborate their relationship with the Ottoman state, were codified by firmans of 1852 and 1853 and reaffirmed by the European powers at Paris in 1856 and Berlin in 1878. The British Mandatory powers likewise honoured these agreements.

France, though a secular republic, nonetheless has very specific rights in the Holy Land, including extraterritorial authority over four sites in Jerusalem. When President Jacques Chirac visited in 1996, he refused to enter the French-controlled Church of St Anne until the accompanying Israeli soldiers withdrew in recognition of its status. The Fischer–Chauvel exchange of letters between France and Israel in 1948–49 made recognition of the new state conditional upon respect for French rights over its sites and Catholic institutions in the Holy Land.

Today, the Saint-Louis French Hospital, run by the Sisters of St Joseph, continues its vital work providing palliative care for the elderly and infirm. Just a stone’s throw from the municipality’s headquarters at Safra Square, it too has been targeted with tax demands.

At the moment, this immediate stage of the crisis could be ended instantly by a single action from the Mayor of Jerusalem, unfreezing the Patriarchate’s accounts and allowing it to resume its religious and charitable mission. The larger issue — the unilateral imposition of arnona on properties that have always been exempt — remains unresolved. The heads of the churches of Jerusalem are united in their opposition to this break with precedent, yet still declare themselves willing to find a negotiated solution. At a time when Israel’s international standing is under unprecedented strain, the influence of its national elected politicians, as well as influence from foreign interlocutors, may prove decisive.

Sina Toossi writes:

“My people are starting to hate Israel.”

That’s what President Donald Trump reportedly told a prominent Jewish donor recently. His remark wasn’t just a political aside; it was a warning. As images of starvation and devastation from Gaza flood American screens, even Trump has privately acknowledged the reality of “real starvation.” A shift is underway, and it is reshaping the foundations of American politics and foreign policy.

Once-unquestioning support for Israel on the American right is beginning to erode. MAGA-aligned voices—from Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who labeled Israel’s war in Gaza a “genocide,” to populist influencers like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson—are now publicly challenging the U.S.–Israel relationship. Bannon has observed that Israel has “very little support” among the under-30 MAGA base. Carlson, in an interview with progressive host Ana Kasparian, went further: “They [Israel] are not allowed to use my tax dollars to bomb churches,” he declared, accusing Tel Aviv of war crimes and questioning continued U.S. military aid.

This growing skepticism reflects a deeper structural problem in the U.S.–Israel relationship: a classic case of moral hazard. Israel operates with the expectation that Washington will foot the bill—politically, financially, and militarily—regardless of how destabilizing or damaging its actions may be. Israeli leaders have repeatedly defied American warnings, expanded illegal settlements, and abandoned even the pretense of a two-state solution with the Palestinians, all while receiving billions in unconditional aid and carte blanche diplomatic cover.

As former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said back in 2011, Israel is an “ungrateful ally” that gives “nothing in return” for American guarantees, military support, and intelligence sharing. Generals David Petraeus and James Mattis, both former commanders of U.S. Central Command, have likewise warned that Israel’s policies directly undermine U.S. interests in the region, inflame anti-American sentiment, and fuel recruitment for extremist groups.

Yet, Israel’s leaders continue to act with impunity, confident that the United States will absorb the political and strategic fallout. That is not the mark of a healthy alliance. It is exploitation.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Israel’s recent actions toward Iran. Despite explicit warnings from Washington, Israeli forces launched a surprise attack on Iran on June 13, hitting nuclear, military, and civilian sites, and killing senior commanders, scientists, and hundreds of civilians, including children. The timing was no accident: the strikes came just as U.S. diplomats were reportedly on the verge of a breakthrough in nuclear negotiations with Tehran.

The fallout was immediate, and its costs to the United States extended far beyond diplomacy, striking at the heart of American strategic and material security. For example, in rushing to defend Israel during the 12-day war, the United States depleted roughly a quarter of its entire stockpile of THAAD missile interceptors, a vital component of America’s high-end missile defense network. These interceptors are not easily replaced; experts estimate it could take up to eight years to replenish the supply. For a country increasingly focused on deterring China, this is not burden-sharing. It is free riding by Israel, and it leaves America less secure.

And what was gained? Despite triumphalist claims that Iran’s nuclear program was “obliterated,” the reality is murky. The fate of Iran’s enriched uranium and advanced centrifuges remains unknown, and Tehran has expelled international inspectors while embracing a posture of nuclear ambiguity, mirroring Israel’s own opaque doctrine. Far from eliminating the challenge, the attacks have reinforced a hard truth: Short of a full-scale U.S. invasion, there is no military solution to Iran’s nuclear program. Without inspectors or boots on the ground, its status is fundamentally unverifiable. Only diplomacy—long preferred by Trump—offers a path to lasting and verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear activities.

Moreover, despite advanced U.S. and Israeli air defenses, dozens of Iranian missiles broke through, inflicting the worst damage Israeli cities have seen in decades. Rather than projecting strength, the war revealed deep vulnerabilities. Even leading voices on the right are rejecting the triumphalist spin: Bannon asserted that the ceasefire was needed “to save Israel” as it took “brutal hits” and ran low on defenses, while Trump acknowledged that Israel got hit “very hard.” Far from boosting U.S. deterrence, the Israeli war on Iran drained critical American resources, exposed strategic gaps, and entangled America in yet another foreign conflict.

Worse still, Israel’s ambitions don’t end with Iran. Its most hawkish advocates in Washington are now floating escalatory military action against Syria and even NATO ally Turkey. Meanwhile, Israeli leaders have their eyes set on annexing the West Bank and fully occupying Gaza, moves that would further destabilize the region. These reckless objectives threaten to entangle the United States in a cascade of endless wars, isolate it diplomatically, and drain resources and credibility better spent countering real strategic threats. Once again, Israel will expect Washington to pick up the tab—politically, financially, and militarily.

All of this is unfolding as global headlines denounce U.S. complicity in Israel’s war on Gaza, widely seen as genocidal and driven by ethnic cleansing. Around the world, public opinion is shifting sharply against Washington. Trust in the United States is collapsing at a time when it can least afford it, just as it seeks to rally global allies and compete with rising powers like China and Russia.

In this strategic context, the comparison often made between Israel and U.S. partners like Ukraine or Taiwan simply falls apart. Iran is not a great power rival, and Israel is not on the frontlines of a global contest. The U.S. military assesses that Iran’s military posture is defensive, and its nuclear program—while a concerning proliferation risk—is aimed at deterrence, not aggression. Yet for over four decades, Washington has treated Iran as a primary adversary, fixating on a mid-sized, conventionally weak country with no nuclear weapons and a stagnant economy. This misplaced obsession—driven by Israeli pressure and domestic politics—has undermined U.S. diplomatic leverage and distracted from the real challenges of Great Power Competition.

At the same time, Israel continues to prioritize its own interests with little regard for U.S. strategic concerns. While Washington calls for global alignment against Russia and China, Israel maintains ties with both powers. It has refused to sanction Russia. It has deepened commercial ties with Beijing, allowing a Chinese state-owned company to operate the Haifa port—used by the U.S. Navy—despite warnings from American officials about espionage risks. Chinese investment in Israel’s tech and cyber sectors has surged. In effect, Israel safeguards its own flexibility on the world stage while pressuring Washington to forfeit its diplomatic options in the Middle East.

Indeed, Israel has consistently opposed U.S. engagement with other regional powers—particularly Iran and, at times, Saudi Arabia—on balanced terms. Unlike competitors like China and Russia, which maintain relations with all sides to maximize influence, Israel pressures the United States to adopt rigid, zero-sum approaches that shut down diplomatic avenues and heighten the risk of war. This is not the behavior of a responsible ally. It reflects a pattern of coercive dependence in which Israel seeks to constrain American policy while securing unrestrained freedom of action for itself.

This pattern has played out for decades, with devastating consequences. Since 9/11, America’s entanglement with Israel’s hardline agenda has fueled a series of disastrous interventions. In 2002, Benjamin Netanyahu stood before Congress and "guaranteed" that invading Iraq would bring "enormous positive reverberations" across the Middle East. The reality was catastrophe: hundreds of thousands killed, the rise of ISIS, and an emboldened Iran.

These misadventures have cost trillions of dollars, stretched U.S. capacities thin, and damaged Washington’s diplomatic standing. China's successful brokering of a rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran highlighted just how far the U.S. has fallen from its once central role as a regional peacemaker.

Even more corrosive is the collapse of America’s moral authority. By defending Israel’s worst excesses—including apartheid policies and the horrific onslaught in Gaza—Washington is no longer seen as a champion of human rights, but as an enabler of extreme oppression. A foreign policy that sacrifices both national interests and democratic ideals at the altar of an extreme client state is not just irrational, it is strategically untenable.

It is long past time for a strategic reset. Israel is not the indispensable ally it is often portrayed to be, but a regional actor pursuing narrow objectives with little regard for the costs imposed on the United States. No serious partner would repeatedly push the U.S. to choose between its principles and another ruinous war. Unconditional support for Israel has produced one debacle after another, leaving America poorer, weaker, and more isolated.

A realignment of U.S. policy is urgently needed. No alliance should be unconditional, especially one that undermines American diplomacy, security, and global standing. A foreign policy rooted in restraint, realism, and responsibility would condition aid on Israeli behavior and reassert U.S. freedom of action in the Middle East. Washington should engage with all major regional powers based on national interest, not ideological rigidity. Leveraging U.S. influence to secure compromises from Israel, such as halting settlement expansion or ending the Gaza blockade, would not only ease anti-American sentiment but also serve Israel’s own long-term security.

Failing to change course will only further empower hardliners—in Tel Aviv, Tehran, and Washington—who thrive on endless conflict. America must choose: Continue down a path of costly entanglement and strategic decline, or chart a new course anchored in sovereignty, balance, and hard-nosed diplomacy.

George D. O’Neill Jr. writes:

During Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress in July 2024, the Israeli premier received dozens of long and loud standing ovations. The enthusiastic response to his triumphalist speech brought to mind the joyous welcome given to a Roman general returning from a victorious campaign that brought glory to the Empire. Yet this was the leader of a small foreign country whose aggression brings it—and us—a cloud of shame.

Netanyahu, in the speech, boasted about the success of his nation’s campaign against Hamas. Of course, the Netanyahu regime has long indirectly supported Hamas, backing Qatar’s funding of the group. Hamas’s existence and continued rule over Gaza provides Israel a convenient excuse to divide, subjugate, and destroy the Palestinians instead of complying with any of the various “peace” deals it signed over the decades.

Netanyahu, by the time of his oration before U.S. lawmakers, had spent the previous eight months mercilessly attacking Gaza with U.S.-provided munitions. Israel was (and still is) bombing hospitals, churches, schools, water plants, and other civilian infrastructure, rendering most of Gaza uninhabitable. At the time, the mainstream narrative was repeating the “40,000 civilians killed” mantra. Mostly children, women, and other plainly innocent civilians—“collateral damage.” The real number may be even higher than the official count, with corpses buried under the rubble, and with civilians dying from lack of medicine and other basic needs.

As Netanyahu spoke, our congressional leaders enthusiastically applauded and cheered the perpetrator of this horror. Of course, July 2024 was the summer of an important election year, and they wanted to be seen demonstrating their fealty to the Israel lobby.

Questions remain about the Netanyahu government’s lack of preparation for the October 7 terror attacks. Some, including concerned Jews in and out of Israel, have even questioned whether the Netanyahu government was truly caught off guard.

The vaunted Israeli military/intelligence network has recently demonstrated its ability to infiltrate the Iranian government to shut off the Iranian missile defense and also, from inside Iran, to assassinate many leading military, scientific, and government officials. Does anyone seriously believe Mossad was unable to infiltrate Hamas, a ragtag group of fighters who live a short distance from Tel Aviv and are supported, in part, with Israel’s cynical acquiescence? There are voices from inside Israel who have called out the Netanyahu government for “ignoring” intelligence and relaxing the security cordon designed to protect from such an attack.

The Hamas attack by light troops armed with small arms in no way indicates a strategic threat to Israel, but the brutality of the Israeli response is eroding support for Israel across the world, perhaps irreversibly.

Netanyahu has a history of seeing terror attacks as opportunities to exploit. When asked about the impact of 9/11 on U.S. relations with Israel, according to the New York Times, Netanyahu said of the traumatic event, “It is very good.” He then added, “Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy,” meaning it will make Americans more sympathetic to Israelis. The Zionists had hoped for decades to use American military muscle to eliminate obstacles to the unfolding dream of a Greater Israel. (The First Gulf War had been insufficiently pursued by George H.W. Bush and was viewed as a missed opportunity.)

After 9/11, the American political/military/foreign policy establishment, driven by Zionist Christians and conservatives, proceeded to wreck Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Lebanon. Iran is a work in process. The other countries in the region have been bought off and/or subjugated in one way or another (a subject for another article). Only the impecunious Houthis in tiny Yemen have somehow withstood the U.S.-Israeli onslaught, though they have been degraded and their country wrecked.

Many of these actions and policies are mostly hidden from the American people under a veil of propaganda dutifully maintained by the legacy media and political class. The American people have been kept in the dark about what our elites do in our name and with our money. The truth is probably uglier than we think. In Washington, corruption “investigations” are usually theater and opaque for “national security” reasons.

After six decades, we recently learned that the so-called “lone gunman” who killed JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a CIA asset. How much of the really embarrassing information pertaining to that event ended up in burn bags, like the thousands of documents from the Russia collusion investigation, which were recently found in a secret room in the FBI Hoover Building? How many thousands of documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal and other controversies were stuffed into burn bags and incinerated?

We were already aware of small-scale destruction of sensitive materials, such as when President Bill Clinton’s national security aide, Sandy Berger, was caught removing and scissor-cutting copies of a classified document related to terror threats at the turn of the millennium. He received a slap on the wrist. Now, after the latest Russiagate revelation, unaccountable bureaucrats shoveling thousands of important documents into burn bags isn’t unthinkable. These concerns increase the gravity of the unreleased Epstein files and other significant documents which have been withheld.

Truly our government does not act as we the people wish it would. For the past century, Americans have voted over and over again to stop the forever wars, and every time a new president takes office he is confronted with some “emergency” requiring military action.

Last month the House of Representatives approved another $500 million dollars in aid for Israel’s military. Shortly after that, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) recessed the House early to avoid a vote on releasing the Epstein files. Johnson then led a large congressional delegation to Israel. Remember, he has to raise millions of dollars for the house elections next year.

Americans feel betrayed and demand to know whose interests our government serves. It is certainly not the American people’s.

Andrew Day writes:

A specter is haunting America First—the specter of Israel.

America’s unconditional support for Israel has intensified since Donald Trump returned to the White House—compromising the MAGA movement in the process.

Consider a contradiction that emerged during Vice President J.D. Vance’s interview this Sunday on Fox News. Vance said the U.S. was done funding Ukraine’s war effort and implored European nations that profess to care about the conflict to own it. So far, so MAGA.

But when the conversation turned to Israel, Vance’s ideology seemingly turned along with it. After host Maria Bartiromo asked about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to take over Gaza, Vance responded: “Well, ultimately that’s open to Benjamin Netanyahu.” The vice president then listed ways the U.S. would continue backing Israel’s war effort while also cleaning up its mess.

America First conservatives have historically seen Europe as a civilizational ally and Israel as a liability (just check out the writings of Patrick Buchanan, cofounder of this magazine). So, why does Vance often call out America’s Western allies while never giving the same treatment to Israel? Because Israeli interests, not American ones, drive U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Or consider Trump’s most important campaign promises. Trump pledged to crack down on illegal immigration, bring back U.S. manufacturing through tariffs, and avoid wars that don’t serve the national interest.

Each of these policies has been either perverted or abandoned for the sake of Israel.

On immigration, the Trump administration has arrested and sought to deport lawful residents for criticizing Israel. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reportedly paused investigations into human trafficking and drug smuggling so that agents could surveil the internet activity of pro-Palestinian college students. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services screens immigrants’ social media posts for signs of antisemitism—surely including expressed hostility to Israel—when considering applications for green cards. Most Americans understand the moral logic of mass deportations—if you broke the law by coming or staying here, then the U.S. cannot abide your continued presence—but many can’t comprehend booting lawful residents for their stance on a foreign nation in a region of diminishing strategic significance for the United States.

As for trade protectionism, Trump threatened to scuttle a trade deal with Canada because of its decision to recognize the state of Palestine. An America First trade policy would mean striking deals and setting tariff rates according to the material interests of Americans, not the wishes of a small country on the other side of the world. It certainly wouldn’t involve turbocharging tensions with America’s northern neighbor—a peaceable neighbor and reliable ally, no less—to punish sovereign actions deemed unacceptable to a faraway non-ally.

Foreign policy restraint is also out the window. From March to May, the U.S. conducted a massive aerial and naval campaign against Yemen’s Houthi militants. In June, Trump ordered devastating strikes on Iran. In both cases, the targets were Israeli adversaries. Meanwhile, the U.S. has continued bankrolling Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza and its slow-motion ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, damaging America’s reputation, risking blowback in the form of Islamic terrorism, and rendering impossible the two-state solution on Israel–Palestine that Washington long has advocated.

The first half of “realism and restraint” has also been discarded. During the 19th and 20th centuries, hard-nosed realism guided the U.S. to secure hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and then to prevent any other state from dominating its own region. But in the 21st century, the U.S. is not only clearing the way for “Greater Israel” in the Middle East but doing so at the expense of countering China in the Asia Pacific. Beijing must look at every munition sent to Israel as one withheld from Taiwan, which it hopes one day to annex.

Less prominent planks of the MAGA platform have also been downgraded for reasons pertaining to Israel.

Trump promised to dismantle “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” an implicit vow to level the playing field for white Americans in job applications and university admissions. He has taken important steps toward that goal—but has also, at the behest of the Israel lobby, expanded DEI protections for Jewish students.

On the campaign trail, Trump lambasted the Democrats for their feeble response to wildfires on the west coast and Hurricane Helene on the east coast. But earlier this month, the Federal Emergency Management Agency announced it would deny funds to states and cities that boycott Israeli companies. (FEMA later walked back the announcement, though the outrageous policy appears to remain.) Californians and New Yorkers are free to boycott red states that keep males out of girls’ bathrooms and sports leagues—but they had better not boycott Israel.

As for free speech, Vance has taken European leaders to task for censoring conservative views—but he’s looked past Europe’s crackdowns on criticisms of Israel. The United Kingdom in July banned the protest network Palestine Action and on Saturday alone arrested hundreds who protested against the authoritarian move. Vance uttered not a peep on that subject during a trip this weekend to the UK.

To be sure, the Trump administration has accomplished much. The president has closed the border and waged a ferocious attack on DEI. He may now be on the verge of resolving the Ukraine war, with Putin agreeing to meet with him on Friday in Alaska. Tariffs, of course, need time to shore up manufacturing, but Trump’s sweeping levies haven’t produced the economic calamity that globalists warned about. And Trump wisely confined the attack on Iran to a one-night bombing raid and then pushed for Israel to halt its own attacks on that country.

But real MAGA conservatism still hasn’t been tried, and America’s persistent, vast, and historically unprecedented support for Israel is, at present, the reason why.

And Eldar Mamedov writes:

President Donald Trump’s move last week toward bringing Azerbaijan into the Abraham Accords—Washington’s signature initiative to normalize relations between Israel and Muslim nations—no doubt pleased many foreign policy elites. But for conservatives and realists, this isn’t progress; it’s peril.

Israel and Azerbaijan, of course, are entitled to their strategic alliance. Yet there is no conceivable U.S. interest that would justify investing diplomatic capital—and taxpayer dollars—to formalize a partnership that not only functions without America but often functions ruthlessly. U.S. involvement would reward an alliance between two governments whose attacks on ancient Christian communities are already subsidized by American aid.

Israel and Azerbaijan do not need Trump to introduce them. Their alliance is deep-running: Azerbaijan shares Israel’s hostility toward Iran, offers Jerusalem intelligence cooperation and a geographic foothold at Iran’s borders, and buys around 70 percent of its advanced arms from Israel, according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Israel, in turn, imports at least 40 percent of its oil from Azerbaijan. These close economic ties have continued uninterrupted throughout Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and its 12-day war against Iran.

It’s unclear what value Azerbaijan’s inclusion in the Abraham Accords would add, given that bilateral ties already dwarf Israel’s relations with original signatories like the UAE or Bahrain. One explanation may be that Trump, having failed to deliver peace in Ukraine or the broader Middle East, sees this as the lowest of low-hanging fruit: a staged White House handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to tout as a “Muslim-Jewish peace accord.”

But no vital U.S. interest justifies elevating Azerbaijan’s diplomatic status. Beyond the absurdity of brokering peace between longtime allies, Azerbaijan’s importance to America is marginal. Its energy exports matter far more to Europe, yet even there, Baku’s gas can replace at best four percent of Russian supplies—hardly the lifeline Brussels imagines.

Azerbaijan’s primary pitch in Washington, amplified by neoconservative pro-Israel groups, has been its role as an anti-Iran bulwark. While useful to Israel, this should be irrelevant to U.S. strategy, since Iran poses no threat to the American homeland and has been willing to resolve nuclear disputes with the U.S. diplomatically. At a time when America should be extricating itself from Middle Eastern quagmires to focus on China, its only peer competitor, seeking new theaters for conflict with Iran is the definition of strategic malpractice.

The human costs of the Israel-Azerbaijan partnership, however, are truly indefensible. Recently, political commentator Ana Kasparian—herself Armenian-American—told Tucker Carlson that Israel armed Azerbaijan to erase the Armenian people from Karabakh. She referenced the decades-long conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, a predominantly Armenian region legally part of Azerbaijan. After Azerbaijan’s decisive 2023 victory, the world witnessed scenes of mass exodus: Armenian Christians choosing to burn their own homes rather than surrender them, ancient churches being desecrated, and over 100,000 people fleeing under military pressure. Freedom House confirmed this as ethnic cleansing—enabled by Israeli-supplied drones and surveillance tech.

Here’s where U.S. policy becomes complicit: America sends Israel $3.8 billion annually in military aid under a memorandum of understanding, and spent $17.9 billion on aid to Israel in the year following October 2023. While U.S. law (in particular, Section 907 of the 1992 Freedom Support Act) restricts direct arms sales to Azerbaijan (even if waived by past presidents, starting with George W. Bush in the context of the “war on terror”)—Israel faces no such constraints. As Americans fund and equip Israel’s military, Israel sells Azerbaijan Harop “suicide drones” and Orbiter surveillance systems—weapons deployed against Armenians. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz bluntly noted, “Israel’s fingerprints are all over the ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh.”

What compounds this scandal is the cheerleading from Christian leaders in the U.S. In 2019, a delegation of evangelical pastors, led by Jewish rabbi Marc Schneier, visited Azerbaijan to promote “interfaith dialogue” with Aliyev, despite Baku’s decades of state-sponsored anti-Armenian rhetoric. In 2025, after the ethnic cleansing, the president of the U.S. Congress of Christian Leaders (an evangelical group) met Aliyev in Davos. Such visits inevitably yield PR puff pieces about Azerbaijan’s “tolerance,” even as it mocked the slaughter of Armenians by opening a (now-shuttered) “military trophies park,” which featured “ghoulish displays of helmets and caricatured mannequins of Armenian soldiers,” according to Eurasianet.

This hypocrisy isn’t confined to the Caucasus. In 2023, Israel struck the Church of Saint Porphyrius, one of the oldest standing Christian churches, killing 18. Last month, it attacked Gaza’s sole Catholic church, killing three and wounding the parish priest. The evangelical leaders’ silence on Karabakh mirrors their muted response to Gaza’s Christian casualties—exposing a selective defense of religious freedom.

True conservatism demands consistency. Conservatives believe in religious freedom, fiscal responsibility, and an America First foreign policy—backing the Israel-Azerbaijan alliance violates all three principles.

Bringing Azerbaijan into the Abraham Accords would solve nothing. America cannot credibly champion religious liberty while indirectly funding the displacement of Christians. It is strategically myopic and, for those who value moral clarity, politically untenable.