The US commitment to protect the State of Israel is as strong as its determination to maintain safe access to oil and gas from the Gulf.
The United States does not need to maintain a close relationship with Israel to preserve its interests in the Middle East, rather, such closeness complicates all other aspects of its strategy in the region.
The United States has never intervened militarily to protect the State of Israel because it has never needed it.
But on several occasions provide Israel with more weapons, along with an increase in military aid and financial support, and the US has been actively involved in negotiations that have resulted in increased security for Israel.
The itinerant diplomacy of Henry Kissinger in the post-war period of 1973 and the personal commitment of President Jimmy Carter in the negotiations that led to the Camp David agreements of 1979 are some examples.
The United States has also defended Israel by repeatedly using its veto power in the United Nations Security Council to block crucial resolutions for that State, and while in theory it condemns many of the actions of the Israeli government, mainly the expansion of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, in practice it tolerates them.
The reasons that originally justified US interventionism in support of Israel – the affinity with the young nation struggling to survive and the certainty that it would be a faithful ally in the cold war – have long since ceased to be valid.
The difficulties for the State of Israel has passed.
With a per capita income of $36,000 a year according to the International Monetary Fund, it is definitely a rich country.
The cold war for the State of Israel is over.
The main factor that currently pushes the US to intervene in favor of Israel is domestic policy: Israel has indefatigable and well-organized pressure groups that monitor the positions adopted by politicians on important issues for the country and condemn those who do not support it’s position.
There are also other pressure groups that try to influence US foreign policy to act on behalf of certain countries or groups that are victims of the diaspora.
For example, the Armenians have managed to keep alive in the US Congress the issue of the massacre of compatriots in Turkey between 1915 and 1917.
But the pro-Israel lobby is the most far-reaching.
Consequently, the position with respect to Israel is a matter of internal rather than external policy.