Major conservative split over Israel spills out into the open at NatCon

Curt Mills refers to Israel as historic case of "tail wagging the dog" while debate opponent calls realists 'MAGA isolationists'.

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

Sep 03, 2025

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/national-conservatism-conference-2673950929/

Don’t look now but the foreign policy divisions among the conservatives gathered at the annual National Conservatism conference are no longer contained. Today they finally spilled out, like gushing hot lava or whatever metaphor is best, all over Breakout Session B.

Fascinatingly it wasn’t over the Ukraine War, or China, but over Israel.

For many realists and restrainers who include themselves in this annual event — dominated by New Right conservatives who are a bit diverse but at this confab largely support state sovereignty, traditional values, and “the idea of nation” — today was a bit of a victory. For years, "NatCon", launched in 2019 by Yoram Hazony, a staunch pro-Israel nationalist, had largely stayed away from foreign policy; a rare panel on China here, one on NATO there, interspersed with overwrought conversations about the threat of Islamism here in the U.S. and abroad.

But included this year in D.C. are two sessions hosting voices from the right-of-center realism and restraint faction, including remarks on Wednesday from National Review’s Michael Brendan Dougherty, entitled “Why Restraint is Conservative.” If NatCon is the intellectual underpinning of “America First,” it has finally come around to asking if entangling alliances, especially decades-long ones that seem to be driving us off a cliff to the known, are indeed “America First.”

At ground zero of this question is the U.S.-Israel relationship and it is causing a conservative schism, which played out quite viscerally in a debate Tuesday between Curt Mills, editor and executive director of The American Conservative, and Max Abrahms, assistant professor of political science at Northeastern University. It was hosted by Daniel McCarthy, who is a former editor of TAC and now edits Modern Age.

Abrahms came out swinging to call all realists today – especially John Mearsheimer — “wrong” on the issue of Iran and the Middle East writ large. In fact, he called them all “MAGA isolationist realists” who have become “insane” in their wrong-headed analysis since being “right” on the failures of the post-9/11 wars. On Trump’s “successful” bombing of Iran to stop it from going nuclear, Abrahms said of these “Soros and Koch funded” think tanks and other R&R voices:

“(They said) any American intervention in Iran would be just like the Iraq war. They said that (President) Trump and (DNI) Tulsi (Gabbard) were lying, or at the very least totally wrong, about Iran's nuclear weapons capability, that the U.S. has no strategic interest in Iran, that Trump is some kind of a weak snowflake who can't ever stand up to Israel, that he'll only intervene due to Israeli pressure against his own volition, that the war will be another regime change war, that it will require ground forces and a long term occupation, that it will result in thousands of American deaths and international isolation, and it will be another so called never ending forever war…And that Israel may well deliberately kill Americans all over the Persian Gulf in a series of false flag operations. Now this is some really insane stuff. This is some really crazy stuff. It's probably the most inaccurate Mideast punditry that you can find anywhere.”

Abrahms said Trump had always been adamant that Iran could never get a nuclear weapon and he “substantially degraded Iran's nuclear weapons program without setting off another idiotic, never ending regime change war. This is why the 12-day war was such a success.” As for realists, they have no sense of what counterterrorism is about, and should stick to the Ukraine War in their analysis, for on that score, they are right, he added.

Mills quickly pointed out that there was a deal with Iran on the table and Trump could have achieved much more, and without bloodshed, if he had let the negotiations go on and had not gotten sucked into the vortex of Israel and its supporters in Washington who so desperately wanted to bomb Iran.

But before that Mills first brandished a brief against Israel and "the Lobby" that some would say was particularly gutsy with NatCon organizer Yoram Hazony in the room. Mills blasted away at Israel as “perhaps the world's historic case of the tail wagging dog, as former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon...has taken to labeling (it) a vassal state, calling the shots in the world's most powerful empire and that regime change in Tel Aviv — his words, not mine — is necessary.”

“I don’t want to talk tactics at all,” he said. “I seek to talk strategy,” he shifted. To which he continued:

“Why are these our wars? Why are Israel's endless problems America's liabilities? Why are we in the national conservative bloc, broadly speaking, why do we laugh out of the room this argument when it's advanced by Volodymyr Zelenskyy but are slavish hypocrites for Benjamin Netanyahu? Why should we accept America First — asterisk Israel? And the answer is, we shouldn't.”

He said he would not concede that Israel had beaten Iran in the 12-day war, and that a ceasefire was quickly forged for Israel because Iran had penetrated its defenses and we could no longer endlessly supply its missile defenses before running out of our own (something that had been referenced by Rep. Riley Moore, R-W.Va, in an earlier speech, albeit about Ukraine).

Mills also lambasted the Trump Administration’s crackdown on speech here in the U.S. in the guise of “antisemitism” in order to repress criticism of the war in Gaza and the U.S. role in it.

“One could be forgiven for believing the only people this administration is reliably deporting are supporters of the Palestinian cause after riding back into power on the appeal of free speech, enshrined in the First Amendment of this country's Constitution. If conserving that isn't conservatism, I don't know what is. This administration has used its influence to attempt to curb and intimidate speech on Middle East issues, particularly the State Department. After assembling and potentially generationally realigning a cohort of voters disgusted with woke pieties and suffocation of dialog with incessant accusations of racism, Republicans have all too eagerly embraced holding the whip themselves, accusing countless critics as anti-Semites, instead of engaging on the issue.”

The questions from the audience were 90% sympathetic to Mills, though it was difficult to know what the audience was thinking. Shifting body language, mumble-grumbling, and stray bursts of encouragement registered for both sides, at any given moment. There was some audible support when Abrahms declared that Palestine must not be given a state, lest it be construed as a reward for Oct. 7.

Therefore, an opening in the debate is what was asked for and was received, but a glance at the three-day schedule doesn't convey how much a shift on Israel, if any, might be occurring in the larger body. Alongside restrainers Dougherty and Arta Moeini (Institute for Peace & Diplomacy) in a session tomorrow are Heritage Foundation’s Victoria Coates, author of “Battle for the Jewish State: How Israel—and America—Can Win,” and Town Hall’s Kurt Schlicter who a year ago was saying “Israel was absolutely right to kill everyone in its path to save its hostages.”

Still, as Moeini tells me “it's encouraging to see NatCon doubling down on the diversity and coalitional nature of the Right to identify bold new approaches to US foreign policy.” (Which he hopes will help foster “a cohesive grand strategy for the post-liberal, multipolar era and reset America's relationship with the world to preserve US power and competitiveness — unburdened by ideology and the globalist trappings of our past and present.”)

That might be a tall order. McCarthy says he is just happy to see these subjects (though there are no Ukraine War panels to speak of ) on the dais. “Returning to a foreign policy that prioritizes the national interest and puts America first calls for hard choices,” he told me, “and NatCon is putting them on the table, to be fully deliberated upon by conservatives and by the country.”

Israel’s foreign influence is the most unrelenting in US history

There were a handful of times when external powers tried to steer us, but there is no comparing the decades-long grip of the Likud Party on Washington

Michael Vlahos

Sep 01, 2025

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/israel-lobby-us/

In his farewell address to the nation, George Washington included a special pleading:

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government."

It is said that Israel’s influence over American military and foreign affairs is unique — that no small state in modern times has exerted such control over the affairs of a great power. This is a troubling claim. But is it true?

For sure, foreign powers historically have attempted to influence American politics, to steer, or even control our actions in the world. But their interventions never came close to matching Israel’s sustained sway over Washington’s power centers. This intricate grip has now lasted generations and has prevented the U.S., time and again, from acting in its own security interests in domestic as well as foreign affairs.

A comparative analysis would be useful in order to fully grasp the gravity of the situation. Let’s look at four instances in which foreign powers tried to intervene in U.S. politics. How aggressive were they? How much did they threaten American security? Was U.S. sovereignty ultimately damaged?

Only then can we fully take the measure of Israeli influence operations today.

France tries to manipulate its weaker client

Bourbon France was a decisive factor in securing American independence in 1783. Ten years later, France was torn by revolution and invaded by European great power monarchies. In desperation, France tried to suborn its former client, the United States. “Citizen” Edmond-Charles Genêt was sent to petition President Washington for help; instead, he lured Americans into a privateer scheme to raid British and Spanish shipping.

Washington had just declared neutrality in France’s European war. This was a naked bid to drag America into war. Washington quickly quashed Genet; yet the new United States continued to benefit from its fraternal relationship with France. There was the Louisiana Purchase, and then, in 1812, Madison took the U.S. to war with Britain in the belief that Napoleon was about to defeat America’s old nemesis. Hence, American strategy remained under the long, yet mutually beneficial, shadow of its old French patron — and then, after just a generation or so, it was gone.

Britain, France use Confederate States for their own ends

In the American Civil War, Britain made war on the U.S. through its proxy Alt-America, the Confederate States of America. The million rifles it delivered to the Confederates kept the Rebel cause going. Plus, Royal Navy ironclads — massed for several years in Bermuda — deeply degraded the Union blockade. Britain’s strategic goal was a bit like U.S. aims against Russia in the Ukrainian war: to cut off at the knees a threatening great power competitor. This was a double manipulation: arming the South, while also forcing the North to accept their proxy subversion — given that armed resistance would push the federal state into a world war with Britain and France. France tagged along only as Britain’s sidekick, taking advantage of the Civil War to invade Mexico. Yet in the event, England’s opportunity evaporated quickly: By 1864, a losing Southern cause forced Britain and France to “cut bait.”

A desperate Britain manipulates the new world power

After the outbreak of world war in 1914, the Allies found themselves totally dependent on U.S. production of war materials. Their war effort depended on the multiple millions of American-made artillery shells, rifles, and explosives that issued forth from the might of U.S. industry.

Britain’s ruling class desperately sought to bring America directly into the war. To that end, they brought to bear every dark art in His Majesty’s Grey Zone arsenal: over-the-top propaganda, sensational intel leaks, and, just possibly, a very grim false flag operation. A triumphant British intel op — the Zimmerman Telegram — helped tip the scales. The U.S. was led by the hand, and not so gently, into World War I.

Britain’s — and Winston Churchill’s — efforts to corral the U.S. into a second world war were even more strenuously devious than those before 1917. Yet, with the full and enthusiastic support of FDR, they can hardly be called manipulation.

A beleaguered USSR manipulates world power

Stalin’s Soviet Union — industrially backward and internationally isolated — found a sympathetic helpmate in the “progressive” Roosevelt administration after 1933. However, when Soviet archives were briefly cracked open after 1991 we could see how deeply the U.S. government was interpenetrated by hundreds of Red-American agents at that time, many at the highest levels of influence and counsel. Moreover, the U.S. gave away the store: 1) It basically forgave the entire Russian war debt (accrued during WWI), which was 150% of U.S. GDP (subsident as it was in the midst of Depression); 2) it gave the USSR access to U.S. aviation technology, the world’s best; and; 3) it encouraged America’s preeminent corporations to create and run a new world of Soviet manufacturing, making Stalin’s dreams of world-class industrialization come true. Not to mention that the Soviets also managed to steal both the A-Bomb and its delivery system, the B-29. Overall, a masterclass in strategic manipulation!

In sum, these all share broad characteristics:

Earlier campaigns were substantively non-ideological, “realist” and opportunistic in nature. Genet covered his schemes in a sheen of revolutionary fraternité, just as Stalin pushed democratic brotherhood in the fight against fascism. Yet dreams of eventual world revolution still had U.S. aid as their single-minded goal. The French Republic, Soviet Union, and British Empire (after 1914) desperately needed the U.S. on their side for resources and money. In sharp contrast, Britain and France in the Civil War were simply flint-eyed opportunists. To bring America to its knees, in the steely slang of great power politics, was in Britain’s strategic interest.

These earlier influence operations were focused on the immediate situation. Leverage over American politics was not meant to be permanent. Rather, political influence was designed to achieve short-term relief in the midst of crisis: For a beleaguered French republic, and even more so for an isolated, bankrupt, and industrially backward Soviet Union. Getting the U.S. in the war (after 1914) was Britain’s existential requirement.

In these cases, moreover, all influence was temporary. In fact, after 1865, 1918, and 1945, aggressive attempts to leverage America led to political backlash and blowback; i.e., the Alabama Claims, the renunciation of the League of Nations, and both the Red Scare and Cold War.

Were they cunning, manipulative, damaging on a number of levels? Yes. Yet all these cases of aggressive foreign influence pale in comparison to Israel’s strategic control operations over the last 80 years.

The Israeli operation is driven by ideology, and shares nothing with the boilerplate mantras of Genet or Stalin. The Israeli “operation” in Gaza is infused with messianic goals and objectives that span decades. Moreover, its softest targets in American politics (Evangelical conservatives) are themselves defined by messianic goals and an apocalyptic vision. The prize is Greater Israel, and nothing less can be accepted. It is what drives the most zealous among the Israeli right — and the Likud as a whole — and which has come as well to animate its Republican supporters, some of the most powerful people in Washington today, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, Ambassador Mike Huckabee, even Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

How did we get to this place?

Three powerful messianic American constituencies have taken the place of the old Washington realpolitik era, which ended in the first Bush administration. First, there was the rise of messianic (secular) neoconservatism, represented by the likes of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. They saw Israel as a powerful American interest in the larger fulfillment of America’s world mission. Then there was the emergence of a “Christian Zionist” bloc, which occupies a place of central salience in the Trump administration. Finally, the highly organized and well-funded Israel lobby has never had a more dominant hold on the executive and legislative branches of the United States government.

Together, they have become the mighty engine driving support for the “Greater Israel” vision and Israel’s government, which has been dominated by the right-wing Likud Party for nearly 50 years.

Thus, unlike earlier foreign influence operations in the American experience, there is no short-term situation. Israel is committed to its long march and grimly determined to pull America along with it. Its forever war with Islam and what it calls “terrorism” point to a protracted, neo-Punic struggle. Indeed, Israel is steeled for centuries of war. This contains within itself far-reaching and dangerous implications.

Yet all foreign influence operations — highlighted by historical cases — are ultimately dependent on the submissive good will of those “under the influence.” Americans had real sympathy for revolutionary France. Confederate leaders truly believed that the British ruling class, or at least King Cotton, was their friend. Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt were rooting for the Allies, not the Central Powers. FDR’s regime was full of “fellow travellers” eager to make common cause with Reds against Fascists.

In contrast, Israel’s obliteration of Gaza — a war of “conquest, expulsion, and settlement” — is increasingly decried by Americans, including a majority of American Jews. Yet the response of Israeli and American “Greater Israel” boosters is to create legal avenues to suppress constitutionally protected speech, particularly criticism of the Israeli government, as antisemitic. Such a strategy now demands law enforcement oversight of American freedoms: in other words, the subjugation of American identity itself.

Hence, this influence campaign by a foreign power is unprecedented in its scope and success and threatens the very sovereignty of the nation more than at any time in America’s history.

The Price of Genocide: How US Funding Sustains an Unraveling Israeli Economy

by Ramzy Baroud | Sep 1, 2025

https://original.antiwar.com/ramzy-baroud/2025/08/31/the-price-of-genocide-how-us-funding-sustains-an-unraveling-israeli-economy/

In an important step toward the economic isolation of Israel due to its genocide in Gaza, Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global has decided to divest from yet more Israeli companies.

Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is the world’s largest, with total investments in Israel once estimated at $1.9 billion. The decision to divest was taken gradually but is consistent with the Norwegian government’s growing solidarity with Palestine and rising criticism of Israel.

Taking a leading role along with Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia, Norway has been a vocal European critic of the Israeli genocide and man-made famine in Gaza, actively contributing to the International Court of Justice’s investigation into the genocide, and formally recognizing the state of Palestine in May 2024. This diplomatic and legal stance, coupled with its financial divestment, represents a coherent and escalating effort to hold Israel accountable for the ongoing extermination of Palestinians.

The Israeli economy was already in a state of freefall even before the genocide. The initial collapse was related to the deep political instability in the country, a result of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his extremist government’s attempt to co-opt the judicial system, thus compromising any semblance of “democracy” remaining in that country. This resulted in a significant lowering of investor confidence.

The war and genocide, beginning on October 7, 2023, only accelerated the crisis, pushing an already fragile economy to the brink. According to reports from the Israel Ministry of Finance, foreign direct investments in Israel fell by an estimated 28% in the first half of 2024 compared to the same period in 2023.

Any supposed recovery in foreign investments, however, was deceptive. It was not the outcome of a global rallying to save Israel, but rather a consequence of a torrent of US funds pouring in to help Israel sustain both its economy and the genocide in Gaza, along with its other war fronts.

Israel’s Gross Domestic Product was estimated by the World Bank to be around $540 billion by the end of 2024. The war on Gaza has already taken a considerable bite out of Israel’s entire GDP. Estimates from Israel itself are complex, but all data points to the fact that the Israeli economy is suffering and will continue to suffer in the foreseeable future. Citing reports from the Bank of Israel and the Ministry of Finance, the Israeli business newspaper Calcalist reported in January 2025 that the cost of the Israeli war on Gaza had already reached more than $67.5 billion. That figure represented the costs of the war up to the end of 2024.

Keeping in mind that the ongoing war costs continue to rise exponentially, and with other consequences of the war – including divestments from the Israeli market by Norway and other countries – future projections for the Israeli economy look very grim. The Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics reported that the Israeli economy, already in a constant state of contraction, shrunk by another 3.5% in the period between April and June 2025.

This collapse is projected to continue, even with the unprecedented US financial backing of Tel Aviv. Indeed, without US help, the precarious Israeli economy would be in a much worse state. Though the US has always propped up Israel – with nearly $4 billion in aid annually – the US help for Israel in the last two years was the most generous and critical yet.

Israel is the recipient of $3.8 billion of US taxpayer money per year, according to the latest 10-year Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2016. Equally, if not more valuable than this large sum are the loan guarantees, which allow Israel to borrow money at a much lower interest rate on the global market. The backing of the US has, therefore, enabled investors to view the Israeli market as a safe haven for their funds, often guaranteeing high returns. This applies to the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund as it did to numerous other entities and companies.

Now that Israel has become a bad brand, affiliated with unethical investments due to the genocide in Gaza and growing illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank, the US, as Israel’s main benefactor, has stepped in to fill the gaps.

The US emergency supplemental appropriations act of April 2024 allocated a total of $26.4 billion for Israel. While much of the money was earmarked for defense expenditures, in reality, most of it will percolate into the Israeli economy. This amount, in addition to the annual military aid, allows the Israeli government to minimize spending on defense and allocate more money to keep the economy from shrinking at an even faster rate.

Additionally, it will free the Israeli military industry to continue producing new, sophisticated military technology that will ensure Israel’s continued competitiveness in the arms market.  The military-industrial complex, a significant part of the Israeli economy, is thus not only sustained but given a fresh impetus by American aid, ensuring the war machine continues to function with minimal financial disruption.

All of this should not diminish the importance of divestment from the Israeli financial system. On the contrary, it means that divestment efforts must increase significantly to balance out the US push to keep the Israeli economy from imploding.

Moreover, this should also make US citizens, who object to their government’s role in the genocide in Gaza, more aware of the extent of Washington’s collaboration to save Israel, even at the price of exterminating the Palestinians. Indeed, the flow of funds from the US is not a passive action; it is an active collaboration that directly enables the Israeli genocide in Gaza.