Unraveling the Permanent Emergency in the Fertile Crescent
A Social Thermodynamics Analysis of the US-Israel Relationship
The following is a case study from Volume 3 of my upcoming book, World Destroyer’s Handbook: The Thermodynamics of Human Coordination.
Where the Russia-Ukraine and US-Mexico case studies were more obviously centered on resources and territorial control, the seven decades of conflict surrounding the State of Israel is a calibrated disequilibrium which also involves energy and territory but is sustained for different reasons, depending on which party’s perspective we adopt. The fundamental instability is demographic. Seven million Jewish Israelis tenuously maintain a first-world economy and military superiority while surrounded by 400 million Arabs across the Middle East and North Africa, without significant natural resources beyond recently discovered offshore gas fields. Israel’s existence as a wealthy, militarily dominant state despite being outnumbered by approximately 60 to 1 by ethnically and culturally hostile Arab states is an unnatural configuration in thermodynamic terms — the existence of Israel is a bit like maintaining an ice cube in the desert. It takes work. Without continuous external energy input in the form of US military aid, diplomatic protection, and technology, Israel would rapidly face the full cost of its continuity against the surrounding gradient. The predictable failure mode would be conquest, occupation, or annihilation by antagonistic populations, if not through direct conflict, through economic pressure. This is the historical fate of small, resource-poor states that face overwhelming hostile numbers. This means that for the Israelis, the US alliance is existential. This is why the various moral narratives surrounding protecting Israel are so critical. “Preventing annihilation” carries infinite moral weight which is converted into justification for unlimited resource flows. And so long as Israel remains surrounded, the existential threat is real, so this ensures an instability that can never equilibrate. It is a structural, demographic instability that demands ongoing intervention — an extractable energy gradient that the US war machine, politicians, and Israel have all become dependent upon.
The United States provides $3.8 billion in annual military aid. However, approximately 75% of this aid must be spent on US defense systems and US contractors, with plans already in place to increase this to 100% by 2028, under current agreements. So the resources flowing from the US circulate back into US interests through companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, and other contractors who perform the work of maintaining Israel’s position. The actual energy transfer to Israel amounts to roughly $950 million annually in freely usable funds, with the remainder cycling through the US military-industrial complex. The $950 million is freely directed, meaning the money spent on US contractors still directly enhances Israeli military capacity.
The conflict zone also functions as an ongoing, real-world testing lab for US defense technologies. For instance, in the years since 2011 the mobile all-weather air defense system developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries known as Iron Dome has successfully intercepted thousands of rockets across multiple conflicts. This gives the technology combat-validation that would have been impossible to achieve through simulation alone. Similarly, another product, Trophy Active Protection Systems now protects American Abrams tanks after extensive real-world combat testing on Merkava tanks in Gaza. Israeli defense exports reached $12.5 billion in 2022 and combat-validated systems command premium pricing over untested alternatives. Combat-validation leads to industrial value that compounds over time. For example, Unit 8200, Israel’s signals intelligence group, has produced alumni who founded the company Check Point which had a $20.69 billion market cap in 2025. Other examples of this compounding industrial value include companies like the Israeli company Waze that sold to Google for $1.3 billion, and Mobileye that sold to Intel for $15.3 billion. The ongoing conflict and the demand for technological innovation that emerges produces a different dynamic than peacetime innovation because it commands existential moral and strategic imperatives. Israel’s intelligence apparatus represents decades of embedded energy investment. Intelligence networks in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Iran required generations to build, each relationship representing years of sunk cost and trust-building. Each established relationship reduces the energy required to gather future intelligence — a turned agent provides information with a phone call that would otherwise require months of surveillance operations. These networks become more energy-efficient over time as trust deepens and communication protocols optimize. Destroying and rebuilding these networks elsewhere would require not just the initial energy investment but decades of operational energy to reach similar efficiency. Israel invests in intelligence operations but receives military aid that represents millions of hours of American labor crystallized into weapons systems. The US provides that crystallized labor but receives intelligence that would require more energy to obtain or be outright impossible to achieve through alternative means. The relationship persists because both parties extract more energy than they expend from their local frame of reference. This mutual dependency creates an arrangement that resists easy disruption.
Then, domestically, we have a complex political quagmire of path dependence and misaligned incentives. In the mainstream discourse, the refrain is that the US supports Israel for one of two reasons, depending on who you talk to: the first reason is that we must support them out of a profound moral obligation. The second reason is that we support Israel because of nefarious political lobbying and “behind closed doors” control of the US government by a foreign power. Neither explanation really answers why the support continues with full clarity because moral and legitimacy narratives cloud the thinking of both sides. Both supporters of Israel and its detractors get lost in their moral diagnostics. When we strip those away, the actual mechanic is simpler. For American politicians, support for Israel is primarily driven by path dependence, strategic utility, and loss aversion. The political downside of opposing Israel vastly outweighs the upside. Any individual politician who withdraws support for Israel faces immediate consequences. Funding gets redirected towards their pro-Israeli competitors. They face resistance from defense and intelligence industries and immediate backlash from many large media outlets, hostile to any withdrawal of US support for Israel. The politician who decides to break ties with Israel faces concentrated hostility. The politician who goes along with the status quo is carried by institutional inertia. The politician who vocally supports Israel is backed by powerful allies.
The result is a structural compliance mechanism, maintained by career risk. From a purely utilitarian defense perspective, Washington views Israel as a regional forward-operating base that, historically, hasn’t required Americans to come home in body bags.
The combined PAC and Super PAC spending of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, better known by their acronym AIPAC, has ranged from approximately $29 million up to $127 million as of 2024, per election cycle, since they began direct campaign involvement in 2022. The organization directs approximately $40 to $100 million annually in political spending which generates a return of $3.8 billion in aid to Israel. Indirectly, this can be understood as a 38 times return on investment, however, the actual mechanism is more sophisticated than a simple donation-for-aid exchange. AIPAC maintains scorecards on individual politicians as a way to make support for Israel politically expedient and opposition to aid politically fatal. A representative who votes against aid to Israel will face Israel-backed challengers in primaries, the headwinds of negative campaign advertising, as well as organized opposition that typically costs more to overcome than the representative’s entire campaign budget.
AIPAC doesn’t need to spend against compliant politicians, only against the defectors. This is an energy-efficient enforcement strategy because they have figured out a way to make the threat of spending more effective than their actual spending. This is a master class in the use of political leverage: the Israel lobby has made a widely unpopular, expensive foreign aid program into perhaps the most untouchable item in the federal budget, where aid to Israel passes by margins that most domestic programs could never hope to achieve.
No major party candidate can afford to question this relationship, regardless of polling showing widespread, bipartisan American public ambivalence. A relatively small financial and electoral investment maintains billions in aid that cycles back into defense contractors, who then support political campaigns, creating a self-reinforcing loop that is resistant to disruption. An adversarial reader might contest the $30 million figure as inexact — but this would be a dodge from the underlying observation. A relatively small, aligned funding ecosystem exerts disproportionate influence over US foreign policy, sufficient to lock in asymmetric, multi-billion-dollar aid packages across both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Further, every Gaza escalation, Lebanese border tension, or Iranian threat moves oil prices, defense stocks, and currency pairs. A baseline “instability premium” on regional energy prices, applied to Middle Eastern oil production of 30 million barrels per day, generates billions annually in excess costs that flow from consumers to commodity traders who are profiting from the volatility regardless of its direction. This is the market pricing in risk, but it’s also a parasitic energy drain, because these profits are claims against human labor and tangible goods without producing concomitant tangible value. Traders profiting from volatility “regardless of direction” aren’t performing price discovery, hedging real risk, or adding demonstrable value — they are extracting rents from the instability itself. Defense stocks show predictable patterns: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon typically gain ~3-5% during escalation periods, creating billions in market capitalization that fund further political influence. For decades, the Iranian nuclear program functioned as a highly profitable gradient amplifier. The ambiguity around Iran’s actual nuclear progress, always seemingly somewhere between months and years from weapons capability, created the perfect conditions where the actual threat could neither be dismissed nor definitively proven. This justified $20 billion in regional arms sales annually in addition to the continuous American military aid, all without ever crossing the threshold into kinetic war.
Prior to the recent escalation in Iran, the Abraham Accords and progressing Saudi-Israeli normalization (meaning, the establishment of formal diplomatic relations) appeared to be a successful restructuring of the gradient. Rather than opposing the Israeli heat sink, Gulf states were buying into its economy and security apparatus, recognizing that alignment offered better returns than continued ideological opposition. Saudi Arabia’s negotiations with Israel represented a massive attempted gradient reversal — trading historical enmity for Israeli technology and American security guarantees. But the 2026 kinetic escalation with Iran served as a stress test for this burgeoning realignment. When Iran began playing the role of Maxwell’s Demon in the Strait of Hormuz, this move exposed the structural weakness of the Western security umbrella: the US and Israel could provide advanced air defense to intercept projectiles, but they could not protect the Gulf’s physical export of energy unless they were actually prepared for a ground occupation or a profound violation of international law. The moment the uncontrolled burn severed their economic lifeblood, the Gulf states were forced to prioritize immediate regime survival over the theoretical long-term benefits of Western alignment. Normalization, it turned out, was a direct byproduct of the energy throughput from the prior metastable configuration. When thermodynamic verification is required, there are no “accords” that can overwrite observable reality. The Gulf states learned that the value of renting the US-Israeli security apparatus was approximately useless since it triggered the exact risk it was marketed to deter. Victors settle debts.
It appears that the administration may have been riding on the fumes of institutional hubris after their near-frictionless decapitation strike of Maduro in Venezuela only weeks prior. By targeting the Iranian nuclear program, Washington appears to have seen an opportunity to execute a similarly isolated operation that could demonstrate US power and provide another decisive political win, both at home and abroad. One is left to wonder about the competence of both strategic military analysts and key decision-makers, since the impact of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz should have been obvious from decades of war-gaming and analysis. However, even a single boxing match between two known fighters is already too complex a system for the combined intelligence of humanity to call. We can assign odds, but not the outcome. Stripped of its nuclear capacity by the initial strikes, Iran simply activated its actual weapon: control over the Strait of Hormuz. By putting pressure on this chokepoint of the global economy, Iran demonstrated that it did not need advanced technology in order to exert existential leverage and that the US lacked the political will and resolve to win a full-scale ground invasion. Iran was an injured animal backed into a corner. The US effectively pushed the decades of calibrated disturbance past its load limit, and the system responded by abruptly transitioning from a mostly controlled, profitable disequilibrium into a highly unstable state.
The lesson for leaders and military powers is that if you are going to use force, you need to be committed to going all the way. You need absolute strength, and not only leverage, if the opponent can call your bluff. This is why the charge of “hubris” is accurate and why the classification as “miscalculation” is not condescension: victory means paying the full cost of verified supremacy. War is a mechanism for extracting thermodynamic verification; it is a strict informational sieve for aligning national self image with reality. It is insufficient for a victor to intuit dominance based on power or scale alone. Victory is being able to translate a model into blood.
The US-Israel relationship survives in part because the military and intelligence apparatus of both nations is so thoroughly interlocked that untangling them would be a massive bureaucratic disruption. However, the deeper reason may be that the billions in annual military aid effectively acts like a retainer fee. The US is paying to ensure Israel’s continued existence. Israel’s persistence itself becomes a mechanism for managing a volatile, bad neighborhood on the other side of the globe, so that, historically, the 82nd Airborne Division doesn’t need to go to the Levant. Without Israel’s persistence the Middle East would be a regional bloc of Islamic nations, situated to control critical chokepoints in the global economy, devoid of any entrenched Western ally. So the US pays Israel a premium to maintain a continuous, localized disequilibrium that prevents the regional consolidation of power. This is why the Arabs call Israel “the Little Satan.” It is a thorn in the side of what would otherwise be a large Arab region. In this way, Israel acts as a regional heat sink, continuously absorbing political and military energy from surrounding nations, forcing that energy to focus and dissipate locally, while preventing those nations from consolidating into a larger bloc capable of directing attention elsewhere.
The configuration, prior to the recent war in Iran, maintained periodic escalation-deescalation cycles without triggering actual resolution. Peace processes would consistently fail just before agreement (Camp David, Taba, Olmert-Abbas). Military operations stopped short of decisive victories and regional actors maintained rhetorical hostilities, in spite of practical cooperation on many security matters. Direct military aid of $3.8 billion combined with approximately ~$500 million in Palestinian aid prevented total collapse. Diplomatic costs included 45+ UN Security Council vetoes since 1972, while regional military positioning required approximately $10 billion annually in base operations and projected force. The indirect costs included anti-American sentiment which generated the need for even more military spending, complicating relationships with oil-producing nations that indirectly affect energy pricing and policy. The total American investment likely approached $20-25 billion annually when these are fully accounted for, before the recent escalation.
We can analyze who gets paid to understand why this apparently inefficient system continued for so long. Returns don’t flow to America as a unified entity but to specific nodes within the system. Defense contractors receive approximately $3 billion in guaranteed annual revenues plus expanded regional sales to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and others seeking to match Israel’s capabilities. Financial institutions also profit from the arbitrage on volatility, sanctions, and capital flows. The political class harvests campaign contributions, post-office board positions, speaking fees, and sinecures at policy think tanks. The technology sector captures innovations from Israeli startups, research partnerships, and dual-use technologies developed under conflict pressure. Energy traders extract premiums from regional instability as it affects global prices. Prior to 2026, this distributed extraction to positioned actors totaled $40-60 billion annually, these are concentrated benefits with diffuse costs creating rationale for continuation for those positioned to gain. Each actor optimizes locally, and their combined optimization locks in the larger system. Peace would trigger catastrophic gradient collapse across multiple sectors simultaneously and, over time, threaten Israel’s ongoing existence while opening a void for other powers to fill. The defense industry would lose $10 billion or more in regional arms sales. The political system would lose an organizing principle for millions of single-issue voters. Regional powers would lose the external enemy that justifies domestic repression and military spending. The aid industry, including hundreds of NGOs operating in Palestinian territories and refugee camps, would see billion-dollar budgets evaporate. The Israeli economy would lose the security justification for preferential trade agreements and technology transfers.
This generates testable predictions that align with observable patterns. Conflicts are predicted to escalate when aid packages face congressional questioning, maintaining the threat perception necessary for approval. Peace processes are predicted to fail as they approach completion, prevented by actors whose interests require continuation. American support is predicted to remain constant regardless of administration changes, with Biden, Trump, Obama, and Bush all maintaining essentially identical policies in spite of using different rhetoric in order to explain it. Regional actors are predicted to maintain hostile rhetoric while engaging in practical cooperation for necessary security. The gradient runs on multiple energy inputs: tax dollars, political capital, institutional focus, opportunity costs of alternative investments, and sustained human effort. The trauma of conflict also creates constituencies in the form of refugees who need aid, veterans who need services, and populations who need security. These, in turn, become the substrate for additional nodes to extract energy by supporting these populations.
Critics see the energy dependence and violence in Palestine and conclude Israel’s presence is illegitimate and colonial — but these are framed as moral claims, not statements about costs, tradeoffs, and outcomes in physical reality. While the defenders of Israel see the same energy landscape and conclude: this is necessary, justified, or even divinely determined — also moral claims. Both critics and defenders observe the same physical reality: Israel’s existence requires massive external energy input to maintain. But the subsequent examination remains firmly rooted in moral language, preventing clear analysis. The “ice cube in the desert” is visible to everyone. But moral assertions immediately halt analysis. This prevents anyone from discussing what’s actually happening: a metastable configuration maintained by energy extraction that benefits specific actors. When you remove the heroism and the villainy, you are left with a system of mutual extortion, bureaucratic inertia, and strategic utility. The machine continues until the cost of breaking it outweighs the pain of its maintenance.
For decades, the assumption was that this wedge only required financial capital and crystallized labor (in the form of weapons and technology), allowing the US to avoid direct combat. However, recent dynamics have demonstrated the critical flaw in this calculation: whenever tension spikes, regardless of the cause, if Israel cannot hold its own, the US is effectively forced to step in. The result is that our commitment to Israel as a necessary strategic ally, in effect, means that we are also on the hook for whatever Israel gets themselves into and any resultant thermodynamic and political consequences.
Israel is not a heroic David, nor is it a shadowy, manipulative puppetmaster. It is a bunker state, trapped running an open-loop risk-mitigation algorithm, perpetually treading water for survival in an environment where it doesn’t belong. Israel’s primary goal is to maximize their strategic freedom of action while minimizing the cost of isolation. By latching onto a global superpower, Israel exports entropy as its primary survival strategy, which is then consumed as input by various US-led industries. Israel routinely leverages domestic American political division by appealing directly to Congress or to the American public through the media in order to bypass an inconvenient White House. The US veto at the UN Security Council and diplomatic cover are not viewed by Israeli realists with starry-eyed gratitude; they are utilities to be consumed. The veto is treated as a buffer against international legal and economic gravity; it is business as usual. Israeli leaders, from Netanyahu to Ben-Gurion, will sometimes openly defy or maneuver around American presidents because, from Israel’s point of view, they are fighting for survival.
Present Day Extraction from Historical Threat
The historical Holocaust and resultant cultural taboos released massive thermodynamic energy. Six million people were killed, centuries of accumulated wealth was seized, and cultural repositories were destroyed. Now, this history is still being harvested as energy 80 years later as Israel converts the memory of the Holocaust into moral lubrication for the ongoing billions in annual military aid, diplomatic immunity for their military operations, and acceptance of their nuclear program.
Human populations, like ants from different colonies, naturally recognize in-group versus out-group and compete when territories overlap or resources are scarce. The notion that populations naturally integrate ignores the physical realities they face. Integration must overcome transition costs and the ongoing costs of increased social friction, as well as energy spent suppressing natural in-group preference. The moment that energy is gone, populations fragment or face increasing conflict as energy and resources contract. We’ve seen this pattern in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Lebanon. The Israel-Palestine configuration demonstrates these dynamics in real time: we see two populations claiming the same territory, neither able to leave, and resources that are becoming scarcer. Israel could pursue a decisive victory through annexation or displacement but faces constraints: US political tolerance has limits, European economic relationships matter, and internal Israeli divisions over annexation create political costs. Israel is achieving gradual territorial gains at whatever rate they can without triggering an international backlash. The “frozen conflict” may simply be a slow-motion Israeli victory already underway. Settlement expansion continues regardless of negotiations, Palestinian territory fragments further, and each crisis enables another incremental advance. The conflict is a siege and one side is slowly winning. The question isn’t whether Israel could win but whether the international response will allow it and how long the American empire can keep footing the bill. However, the broader regional instability is increasingly a catalyst for Israel to abandon the slow-motion approach. If the US is consumed by a global economic crisis triggered by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, or if Washington’s political will fractures, we can predict the constraints on Israel will also evaporate. Facing an existential threat and a closing window of unlimited diplomatic cover from the US, Israel’s risk-mitigation will dictate rapid annexation and displacement. Under these conditions the frozen conflict unfreezes violently as Israel attempts to permanently secure its immediate borders before their external energy subsidy collapses.
From Calibrated Instability to Terminal Extraction
For decades, this system maintained an unstable stability, marked by periodic cycles of escalation and deescalation, keeping the transcontinental heat pump primed for continuous extraction. The metabolic analysis revealed why this apparently inefficient system persisted: Israel was fighting for existence while various nodes extracted energy in the form of defense contracts, energy trading, political advantage, and others — each rationally optimizing based on the perceived energy landscape. The kinetic escalation of early 2026 broke the seal on this cycle of calibrated disequilibrium. The series of events kicked off by the October 7 attacks, and then locked in by the Trump Whitehouse, through their strategic miscalculation, was like a lightning strike in a forest that was overdue for a burn. The US is now trapped in a deteriorating position because it is forced to maintain a status quo that is physically unsustainable, while lacking the resolve (and the capacity) to force a new equilibrium if that demands a full-scale ground invasion. Potential energy that doesn’t cash out into kinetic energy in physical reality, ultimately doesn’t exist. From this perspective, without receipts, “resolve” and “capacity” are just different ways to describe nothing. The 2026 crisis in the Strait of Hormuz proved that Iran doesn’t need a pristine command structure or peer-level technology in order to disrupt the global economy. They only need cheap drones, sea mines, and control of the coastline. It’s difficult to fully secure a physical maritime chokepoint against an entrenched, asymmetric adversary from 30,000 feet. The lesson for the US and other nations is that high-tech military dominance has a diminishing marginal return against low-tech disruption. Throughout history, from Rome to Maya to Chaco, empires have made the mistake of underestimating the power of the barbarian in the hinterlands. If an adversary can choke the physical maritime corridor irrespective of US air and intelligence superiority, then the US is revealed as not being able to provide the security that the world thought it was, and the extractable energy gradient starts to look like a black hole for high-end munitions. Replacing depleted interceptors and deploying carrier strike groups to escort stationary tankers costs orders of magnitude more in raw industrial replacement value than it costs an adversary to lay a minefield. The system is predicted to break when the cost of restoring order exceeds the total sociopolitical and economic energy of the commodities that pass through the bottleneck. As soon as protecting the shipping lane costs more than the oil is worth, the prediction is that math will overtake ideology and Washington will face a rapid phase transition away from the Middle East. In Taoist thought, the image of uncarved block represents the original, unadorned, and simpler state of being that holds unlimited natural power because it hasn’t been complicated by social constructs, laws, and elaborate abstract contortions. “Barbarians” eventually dominate for the simple reason that complexity is brittle and simplicity is dense. Complexity is a loss of integrity.
A heat sink works only as long as its capacity to dissipate energy is proportional to the incoming energy gradient. When regional escalation forces simultaneous defense against ballistic missiles, drone swarms, and maritime blockades, the physical consumption rate of advanced interceptors will eventually outpace domestic manufacturing capacity, requiring a more decisive path to victory or a retreat. If the heat sink of Israel is saturated the US must step in. At this point Israel is no longer a proxy for Western power and the US becomes the logistical guarantor of last resort under active fire. Eventually the industrial throughput of defense supply chains will face a limit and the elite consensus to back Israel will face a hard physical ceiling. For instance, if the US defense-industrial base cannot simultaneously supply protection in the Pacific for Taiwan against China, the strategic value of the Middle Eastern conflict rapidly lowers.
The political dam will break when the rent-seekers start splitting ranks. When broad industrial and financial sectors realize that ongoing Middle Eastern escalation is actively destroying global capital and inflating costs, the pro-Israel status-quo no longer provides the benefit of swimming with the current. If this occurs we can predict corporate and government actors to prioritize self-preservation over historical moral justifications. Eventually, AIPAC’s leverage will also vanish under the weight of macroeconomic reality. When profitable volatility becomes global depression the economic pain inflicted on the American middle class will start to outweigh the career risk of defying the Israel lobby. Once this occurs politicians will rapidly reorganize around a new policy baseline and funding will quickly decelerate. Once this occurs we can anticipate a transition into a phase of terminal extraction where actors pull out in a defection cascade, taking whatever they can in the process. When Wall Street and Main Street both calculate that US involvement in the Middle East has become survival negative, the protective political shield around Israel will vanish, and a new political consensus will form. This may well mark the final turn towards contraction kicking off global complexity reduction. Whether we view it as a cause or symptom is irrelevant.
If the US ever wants to leave the region we are stuck between withdrawing support for Israel or abandoning the Gulf to Arab consolidation and Chinese or Russian influence. Because it cannot choose either, the US defaults to the middle path: continuously burning its crystallized labor, treasury, and global credibility to “manage” the ongoing crisis. But this is less a strategy than it is treading water. At the moment we are burning energy without changing the underlying geography or demographics of the region. This means the conflict as it stands today is an energy drain. An open wound that has not been bandaged. The Abraham Accords as we knew them are likely permanently dead. Gulf states will likely seek security guarantees from whatever power is capable of restraining Iran diplomatically or militarily without regional active war, possibly a multipolar arrangement involving China. Long term, a population of 7 million cannot permanently maintain military and economic supremacy over an ethnically hostile population of 400 million.
The new world is one where US capital alone can no longer guarantee the free flow of global energy. The ice cube in the desert is melting.
Stripped of moral framing, outlining the key dynamics only, based on observable facts:
~7.7 million Israelis are surrounded by 400 million Arabs (~60:1 ratio)
Insufficient natural resources to justify wealth differential
US provides $3.8 billion annually, with ~75% recycled back into US defense contractors
$12.5 billion in Israeli defense exports
~$30 million political donations maintain $3.8 billion aid flow (massive indirect ROI)
Historically, this meant massive bipartisan support from elected officials, in spite of public unpopularity
Both major American political parties maintain directionally identical Israel policies
Regional instability is a risk premium on oil prices
Defense stocks gain billions in market cap
The gradient protects intelligence networks that took decades to build, that are difficult or impossible to replicate
Every administration maintains the same strategic commitment to Israel
~$40-60 billion is extracted annually by positioned actors
Israel is preserved against environmental equilibration through continuous energy input
75 years of “temporary” crisis have transitioned into a highly unstable state requiring active military engagement
The following VERIFICATION COSTS were paid in the production of this article:
