Since Israel invaded Gaza in response to Hamas’ 10/7/2023 terrorist attack, many Americans have been questioning the US role in the war. Specifically, why should we be involved at all?

So far, US support to Israel has been limited to military aid, intelligence sharing, and staging forces in the area to prevent an escalation of the conflict to include counterattacks from other countries against Israel. Additionally, the US has provided humanitarian aid to Gazans. Diplomatically, the US has been inconsistent in a fashion that undermines US interests in the conflict.

While the US has many relevant interests let me focus on the two that are vital: international terrorism and nuclear proliferation. US interests are hierarchical: vital, important, tertiary. Our humanitarian interests are tertiary (lesser value but still of value) so I will not discuss. Only our vital interests are so important that the US would go to war, but will prefer to achieve without using our military power.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. While some may disagree, officially the US has recognized Hamas as a terrorist organization since 10/8/1997. Further, the US has an official national interest in ending international terrorism. Hamas is an international terrorist organization with ties to Iran and operations around the world including the US. For an overview of official US interests see National Security Strategy 2000.

Israel’s war aim is to end Hamas. Thus Israeli success achieves US interests related to international terrorism by ending an officially recognized terrorist organization.

When al Qaeda adopted a franchise model for expanding the War on Terror beyond US military resources, as a force multiplier, the US adapted by providing financial aid and training to governments facing terrorism threats so US forces would not be diluted by spreading conflicts. Our current financial and military aid to Israel in their invasion of Gaza is a continuation of that policy. Instead of Israel getting special treatment, they are getting less than we have given other countries in significant ways because they need less aid.

Frankly without technical and financial aid from the US, Israel could not be as precise in many of their attacks so there would be more civilian casualties in Gaza. Contrary to critics’ propaganda, without US aid Israel would still be in Gaza with the same objective, see what Israel did to Beirut in the 80s.

Some may say that the US shouldn’t be fighting international terrorism and shouldn’t be helping Israel end Hamas. However US foreign policy isn’t rendered de novo based upon feelings. US policies are a bipartisan continuity directed by precedent and agreements. Such is not immutable but should be changed based in principles instead of whim or feelings or the opinion poll of the moment.

Consider Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon in which they drove out the PLO. During the invasion, Reagan’s advisor Mike Deaver got weak kneed and weepy eyed over the brutal Israeli bombardment of Beirut; he threatened to resign if Reagan didn’t make the Israelis stop. Consequently an evacuation by the PLO to Libya was negotiated and executed. Thus all of those killed subsequently by PLO/Fatah, Hamas, and other Palestinian terrorist organizations are the fault of a man unwilling to stomach the brutal work required to end a terrorist organization. After the PLO evacuated, moderate Arab leaders emerged in the West Bank and Gaza. What happened to those peaceful moderate leaders? The Palestinian terrorists killed them, which led to the return of the PLO and subsequent civil war between Fatah and Hamas for control of international humanitarian relief resources and money.

We should learn from the failure and deaths from the US previously restraining Israeli efforts to end an Arab terrorist organization.

Let’s talk about the elephant in the room: nuclear weapons vs. from the river to the sea.

Hamas’ objective is to conquer Israel and kill the Jews. How do you negotiate with that? In the name of moderation and compromise, should Hamas get to kill half the Israelis? For Hamas, violence will not stop until Israel is destroyed. Israel believes Hamas when the terrorists say this, but useful idiots do not. This is not a conflict in which both sides can win; either one wins, they both lose, or a stalemate peace-process-war continues with more dead civilians on both sides. The peaceful outcome with the least collateral damage is Hamas destroyed by Israel.

Let’s assume Hamas wins. Israel has nuclear weapons…shhhh, it is a secret that everyone knows. Does the US want a terrorist organization with ties to Iran to have nuclear weapons? That is potentially a green glass scenario with the US at war.

One of the overarching reasons for US interventions in the world is to prevent nuclear proliferation. Despite setbacks, the US has been better at doing so than one would have expected after the US lost its nuclear monopoly. Even the threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan relates to US’ nuclear non-proliferation vital interest. If Taiwan doesn’t trust in US protection, they may restart their research program into nuclear weapons. If Taiwan is conquered because the US was unreliable, both Japan and South Korea could quickly become nuclear armed states.

Back to Israeli nukes in Hamas’ hands. How long before a terrorist organization like Hamas would use that weapon? How long before Iran acquired the nuclear technology from Hamas? Consider that Iran has nuclear scientists but Hamas doesn’t so they would call in the Iranians immediately.

The US giving aid to Israel in this conflict will not only advance the US’ vital interest in ending international terrorism but reduce the risk of further nuclear proliferation. With US vital interests at stake and the Israelis doing the fighting, aiding Israel against Hamas is putting America first.