USA’s Global Suzerainty: Power, Influence, and the shadow of Israel
The Web of Suzerainty: How the United States Shapes Global Policy and the Shadow of Influence Over Itself
In the intricate dance of global geopolitics, the concept of suzerainty illuminates power dynamics that are often obscured by the rhetoric of sovereignty. Suzerainty describes a relationship where a dominant state exerts significant control over the foreign policy, and sometimes economic decisions, of a subordinate state, while allowing it a degree of internal autonomy. Unlike outright colonialism, suzerainty is subtler, operating through alliances, economic leverage, and military presence, yet it can feel profoundly humbling for nations that pride themselves on independence. The United States, as a global hegemon, has woven such a web over regions like Europe, the Middle East, and Japan, steering their geopolitical and economic paths in ways that reflect American priorities. Yet, in a curious twist, the USA itself appears to operate under the influence of Israel, with mechanisms like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and intelligence ties amplifying this dynamic. This article explores these relationships, offering real-world examples of USA suzerainty and probing the provocative notion of Israel’s sway over its superpower patron, all while envisioning how AI might empower a more equitable global order.
I have created a video to go with this article, it can be found here:
In Europe, particularly the United Kingdom and Germany, the United States exercises suzerainty through NATO and economic interdependence, often aligning their foreign policies with Washington’s strategic goals. The UK, despite its historical stature as a global power, has frequently subordinated its geopolitical stance to U.S. interests. A striking example is the 2003 Iraq War, where the UK, under Prime Minister Tony Blair, joined the USA led invasion despite widespread domestic opposition and questionable evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The decision reflected USA pressure to align with its post-9/11 agenda, sidelining the UK’s own strategic deliberations. Germany, while more cautious, has also bent to USA influence, notably in its support for sanctions against Russia following the 2014 Ukraine crisis. Despite Germany’s economic reliance on Russian energy, it adopted USA driven policies, culminating in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline’s suspension after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, a move heavily influenced by USA diplomatic pressure to isolate Moscow. These instances reveal how the USA, through NATO’s framework and bilateral diplomacy, shapes the foreign policy of even Europe’s strongest players, often at the cost of their independent strategic interests, fostering a sense of diminished agency among their publics.
In the Middle East, USA suzerainty manifests vividly in nations like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt, where military and economic dependencies bind these states to American directives. Jordan, a key USA ally, has received substantial financial aid, including over $500 million annually in recent years, which ensures its alignment with USA regional goals, such as hosting American troops and supporting anti-terrorism efforts. During the 1950s and 1960s, the CIA funneled millions to prop up King Hussein, securing Jordan’s pro-American stance against regional nationalist movements. Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the USA, cemented by the 1974 petrodollar agreement, exemplifies economic suzerainty: Saudi Arabia agreed to price oil in USA dollars and invest in American treasuries, bolstering USA economic hegemony, in exchange for military protection. This deal, born after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, continues to shape Saudi foreign policy, as seen in its reluctance to normalize relations with Israel without USA approved terms. Qatar, hosting the Al Udeid Air Base with 10,000 U.S. troops, aligns its diplomatic efforts, such as mediating Gaza ceasefires, with U.S. priorities, often acting as a conduit for American influence in the region. Egypt, reliant on $1.3 billion in annual USA military aid, has consistently supported USA backed initiatives, including the Camp David Accords of 1978, which aligned its foreign policy with USA and Israeli interests despite domestic and regional backlash. These examples underscore how USA financial and military leverage constrains these nations’ autonomy, often perceived as a humiliation by citizens who see their leaders as tethered to foreign agendas.
Japan, a cornerstone of USA influence in Asia, exemplifies suzerainty through its post-World War II security arrangement. The USA-Japan Security Treaty, signed in 1951 and revised in 1960, allows the USA to maintain over 50,000 troops across bases like Yokosuka and Kadena, shaping Japan’s defense policy. A clear instance of USA dominance is Japan’s alignment with American sanctions against China, despite its economic interdependence with Beijing. In 2019, Japan followed USA urging to restrict Huawei’s 5G infrastructure, prioritising USA strategic concerns over economic benefits. Additionally, Japan’s participation in the Quad alliance, alongside the USA, India, and Australia, reflects Washington’s push to counter China, often overriding Japan’s preference for regional economic cooperation. This dynamic, while ensuring Japan’s security, can feel like a loss of agency, as its foreign policy often mirrors U.S. objectives, a reality that stings for a nation with a proud historical identity.
Yet, the narrative of suzerainty takes a provocative turn when examining the USA-Israel relationship, where Israel appears to exert significant influence over its superpower ally, arguably resembling a suzerainty-like dynamic. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) plays a pivotal role, leveraging its lobbying prowess to shape USA policy in Israel’s favor. For instance, AIPAC’s advocacy has ensured consistent USA military aid to Israel, totaling $150 billion by 2022, with $3.8 billion annually in recent years, often approved with minimal Congressional debate. In 2019, AIPAC’s influence was evident when it mobilized support for emergency funding to replenish Israel’s Iron Dome system, securing $1 billion despite domestic budget constraints. The CIA’s collaboration with Israeli intelligence, such as the sharing of Soviet radar technology during the 1969 War of Attrition, further cements this partnership, with Israel providing strategic intelligence that bolsters U.S. regional dominance. However, this relationship raises questions about autonomy: U.S. policies, like the 2025 decision to release 2,000-pound bombs to Israel despite international criticism, often align with Israeli priorities, even when they strain relations with allies like Jordan and Egypt. Critics argue this reflects a dynamic where Israel, through domestic lobbying and intelligence ties, shapes USA policy, a reversal that some Americans perceive as a compromise of their nation’s sovereignty. The sanctions and attacks on the International Criminal Court, at the behest of Netanyahu, following the arrest warrant issued against him by the court further demonstrates how USA is susceptible to the demands of Israel and their leadership. We can also look to the crack down on free speech, contrary to the 1st Amendment, any criticism of Israel or Jews in general, carries heavy penalties.
The United States’ impulse to exercise suzerainty over regions like Europe, the Middle East, and Japan often stems from a self-perceived moral obligation to stabilize a world scarred by the violent legacies of colonialism and the World Wars, where European powers and Japan wrought devastation through imperial conquest and militarized aggression. The USA, emerging as a superpower post-1945, viewed itself as a guarantor of global order, wary of repeating the chaos of colonial exploitation—such as Britain’s plundering of India—or Japan’s imperial expansion in Asia, which culminated in atrocities like the Nanjing Massacre. This history of “unacceptable behaviour” fuels America’s rationale for steering allies’ policies, as seen in its insistence on NATO’s collective defense or Japan’s demilitarization under the 1947 Constitution, to prevent resurgences of such violence. Intriguingly, vassal states like Germany, rebuilt with U.S. Marshall Plan aid, or Jordan, reliant on American support against regional threats, often encourage this suzerainty, trading autonomy for security and economic stability. We can easily sympathise with USA’s perspective, dealing with the juvenile behaviour of some leaders can be likened to herding cats. Yet, with AI’s capacity to analyse historical patterns and propose equitable frameworks, these nations could gently nudge the U.S. toward partnerships rooted in mutual respect, aligning with Dharmic principles to foster a harmonious global future.
For nations under USA suzerainty, the weight of external influence can feel like a quiet erosion of pride, as their leaders navigate the tension between national aspirations and American expectations. Yet, in the spirit of optimism and Dharmic principles, there lies hope. AI technologies, capable of analysing vast geopolitical data, could empower these nations to negotiate more balanced partnerships, identifying leverage points to assert their sovereignty. For the USA, AI could illuminate the risks of over-reliance on any single ally, fostering policies that align with global stability and fairness. As we stand on the cusp of new frontiers, the best is yet to come—a world where technology aids nations in reclaiming their voices, guided by the divine order that shapes all creation.
Sources:
• Historical U.S. influence in Jordan and Middle East: United States foreign policy in the Middle East, Wikipedia
• Saudi-U.S. petrodollar agreement: How has the US maintained hegemony in the international oil trade, ScienceOpen
• U.S. military presence in Qatar and Egypt’s aid: U.S. Forces in the Middle East, Council on Foreign Relations
• UK and Germany’s alignment: General knowledge of NATO dynamics and Ukraine sanctions, no specific source required
• Japan’s security treaty and Huawei decision: General knowledge of U.S.-Japan relations, no specific source required
• AIPAC and U.S.-Israel aid: Israel–United States relations, Wikipedia
• CIA-Israel intelligence sharing: Israel–United States relations, Wikipedia