THERE are two birds that my forebears believe to have their destinies tied together— now I know that sounds superstitious, but stay with me —and these birds are such that when you chastise one, the other is expected to feel the pain. One is called ẹtù, the other awó. And so, here goes the saying: bí a ń bẹ́tù, orí á rawó. Where I am going with this expression is not far, but maybe where I would like to branch out will be. The ẹtù and awó aphorism is my favorite description of the US-Israel relationship. But the relationship between the US and Israel is not the only interdependence that I want to take you through in this article: we are talking about the world too. If nothing else, the hike and fluctuations of fuel prices in the world over this year are enough to convince even the least educated with a proper radio set that you do not have to live in another country to bear the brunt of its political decisions.
So, let us begin with this question: What kind of glue ties Israel to America, or America to Israel, to the extent that it is almost always a correct guess that whatever political business that Israel is pursuing, America aligns with it? In a hypothetical universe where Israel is the United Kingdom with Puritan history, one could easily say that the 5 & 6 commitment between America and Israel is one of parent country to its progeny. That universe does not exist. In this one that does, New England or New World, the near-birth names of the United States, refer back to the British society where the English conquistadors who defined the free world came from. In other words, what exists between Israel and the United States is not like what exists between Britain and Nigeria or France and Côte d'Ivoire.
THE US-Israel relationship began as an effective handshake for Zionism, which formally goes as far back as UN Resolution 181 that ensured the partitioning of Palestinian territory into Jewish and Arab states. In 1917, the United States, under President Roosevelt, had only partly supported the Jewish course. At the 1948 proclamation of the creation of Israel, however, President Truman of the United States recognized the newfound state the same day. This was at variance with the assurances that had been given in 1945 by the immediate past and late President of the United States, Roosevelt.
Significantly, it was also against the British interest. Why Britain could not stop the partitioning was partly due to the emergence of the US as the undisputable number 1 country in the world. By the end of World War II, Britain was at a point of transformation from an imperial power to a welfare state, while the US was taking its strides in cementing itself as a global superpower. Between 1946 and 1948, President Truman "announced his approval" of the admission of 100, 000 Jews into Palestine.
If you have ever wondered where President Trump's audacity and ghibli jokes about annexing Palestine (or Canada) come from, you may look back to Truman. For Truman, it was not particularly without reservations to support Israel, but there was a greater concern for the influence of the battered Soviets in the Arab domain, which could constitute a problem for the oil interests of the United States (see, oil has always mattered to Uncle Sam). Israel had no need to obstruct what the US wanted in the region, as did the United States. Israel got its geographical settlement and the United States continued access to oil. Beneath the layered struggle in West Asia, this condition remains. And once upon a time in Iran, a.k.a. Persia, this was also the same relation that the US had.
The relationship changed in 1951 when the Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, newly elected, decided that Britain, through its Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, would no longer control Iranian oil. His nationalist reform only held until President Truman's successor, Eisenhower, took over. In 1953, he was removed from office in what is recorded as Operation Ajax. Operation Ajax was the making of the United States, fearing the possibility of Soviet influence, with the support of the United Kingdom, protecting its economic interests. The Shah took over until the Iranian Revolution ousted him in 1979, and restructured under the Supreme Leadership system, which has ensured the sustenance of Mosaddegh's economic principle.
THE beleaguered history skirted around in the foregoing section has a particular thread. The 20th-century foreign policy of the United States hardly changed with Israel and the rest of the region. The same remains true, red or blue, today and tomorrow. For the United States, the power bloc that does not obstruct its oil interests is free to rule its people and get its support. The difference, however, is in how the Presidents see the degree of execution of this position. Where Roosevelt saw no need for partition, Truman did, where Truman saw no need for a coup, Eisenhower did. It is seeing what is fit for American interests that drives its relations, even at the extremes. For Israel, unlike Palestine or Iran, red or blue works, because, red or blue, Americanism is sacrosanct and contoured only by depth of presidential style as it is, does not stop its expansionist drives. Even more to Israel's advantage, Palestine, which is not an oil-producing state, 'unfortunately' enjoys the patronage of the "death to America" Iran, procuring American ire, in its ceaseless struggles to evade the absorption of its existence and heritage into Zionism.
What the United States does with Palestine is a vicarious punishment of what it considers an axis of evil. If Iran would rather subject itself to proto-Islamic self-determinism and deny its oil interest, then Israel's Zionist expansionist desire may as well be feigned as a fight against Islamic fundamentalism in the region. Zionism is not the end goal of the American conquest, nor is eradicating terrorism; the two, especially the latter, are only its instruments. This is a complex conversation, which has open indictments of the United States and (maybe) the United Kingdom in the spread of terror. US politicians like Scott Perry have openly stated this. Also accused is the UK bank Standard Chartered, protected from prosecution by the UK government through a secret intervention by Chancellor George Osborne.
Sure thing, the blue-some American midterm and the likely democratic ousting of Netanyahu can only mean so much for the world, as with the reverse of the situation. In the next two years, various opinions have been shared that the US will find itself in a state of back-and-forth, between a President who is all too willing to veto what does not sit well with him, and a parliament where no oppositional politics may leave no stone unturned because of the 2028 quest to reclaim the presidency. How much of what goes on within the United States will spill over to its conducts in the comity of nations? In the 2026 United Nations meetings, the US and Israel have voted against key resolutions. How would the political change within America affect this?
I want to hazard guesses to answer these questions, but I find myself leaving it to the intrigue of time and geopolitics. As I told a friend over a casual chat on the matter, I do not see much changing, but I am sold on the dynamics of an America that thoroughly checks itself, which is to me the singular most admirable feature of its democracy. The more concerning front to me is Israel, ousting Netanyahu does not necessarily mean changing its drive for occupation of its neighbours. On the one hand is the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu has weaned his political ideology quite deeply into Israeli politics, being its longest-serving PM with over 19 years non-successive years of service. On the other hand, there is the newcomer Gadi Eisenkot, who is to be the next Prime Minister, but whose ideologies may not be a far cry from Bibi's.
The possible radical change between Eisenkot and Netanyahu would be in their approaches to leadership. The benefit of experience that Bibi has in imperialist statecraft, Eisenkot has in military autocracy, on the back of a 41-year experience in service. The joker for him and his administration is in the growing influence of the Arab Party and its failure to get a simple majority to stake an immediate claim to power. The Arab Party is against the West Bank occupation, yet the votes of Netanyahu's bloc did not slip to his side. Would Eisenkot concede anything to the former or convince the incumbent to cede ground to him for the greater purpose of common interests?
AS a citizen of a country in the Global South, this year was a challenging year for me. As Donald Trump nuked Ayatollah Khamenei, and killed some 120+ Minab school children, among other casualties, many of us in my part of the world assumed the status of the living dead. The living dead, in Yoruba thought, is a person who is trapped in a state of incapacitation to look after their own self, mostly in an economic sense. Nigeria, my country, still struggles to find its footing in a new government's economic experiments, which is another way of saying that oil matters to my survival. Sadly however, my survival, which should not have to be quite dependent on the American quest or the West Asian defence, was, and still is.
The blockade in the Strait of Hormuz hiked fuel prices globally, but it also did so locally in Nigeria. With dead government refineries and a private refinery that still partly relied on foreign efforts in its operations, the situation became an instance of pouring water into a basket with a thousand unblocked holes. By 12 March 2026, Nigeria was top 10 in countries with an increase in local prices of fuel, at 48.15%. It is this reality that frightens me, and I know this to be true of millions of citizens of Third World countries. In Donald Trump's policies, I am most likely a vermin (being a Muslim, black, and Nigerian is not exactly a CV DJT would bat an eye at). I am not worried about Trump, or any foreign president for that matter; I am worried about how my own government leaves me vulnerable to foreign policies. America is for Americans, regardless of the color of its politics. Truman, who immediately recognized Israel, was a Democrat but American, Eisenhower, who ensured American influence in Iran, was a Republican but American still.
I do not have front-row access to Nigeria's decision rooms, but I hope that someone at the table takes note, that Africa takes note. This was largely a year in which millions of people became collateral damage even though they were several countries away from the warfield. As a corps member for the first five months of the year, I cannot quickly forget how my expenses shot up because of daily fares, leaving me slaving away in the name of nationalism. After the service year, I have also found myself at that juncture where the Yoruba says the discussion rejects spoken speeches. I was not surprised that Nigeria inevitably retained its place as the poverty capital of the world. Would the ruckus of West Asia and the American contraption further do me in?
Leave a Comment