The US deployment of an anti-missile system to Israel – plus 100 troops to operate it – comes just as it says it will cease military aid to Israel, in line with a US law that prohibits military support countries that block humanitarian aid. , like Israel is doing in Gaza.
It also raises questions about the legality of US involvement at a time when US President Joe Biden’s administration is facing growing backlash over its support for Israel.
Two recent developments – Sunday’s announcement that the United States would deploy troops to Israel and a letter sent the same day by American officials calling on Israel to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza or face unspecified consequences – highlight the inconsistent approach of an administration that has actually done little concrete to curb the ever-expanding war on Israel.
At a press briefing Tuesday, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller declined to say what the consequences would be if Israel failed to comply with U.S. requests, or how that differs from a previous, unfulfilled threat by the Biden administration to withhold military aid to Israel.
“I’m not going to talk about it today,” Miller told reporters when asked for details on how the United States would respond to Israel’s refusal to comply.
Empty threats
In the private letter leaked Tuesday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin called on Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer to implement a series of “measures “, with a deadline of 30 days to reverse the deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The United States briefly suspended the delivery of thousands of bombs to Israel earlier this year as Israeli officials planned to expand operations in southern Gaza, but it quickly resumed and continued supplying weapons to Israel as even as they intensified their attacks in Gaza and later in Lebanon.
“A letter jointly signed by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense indicates a heightened level of concern, and the not-so-subtle threat here, whether the administration carries out or not, is that they will in fact impose consequences under the law these various legal and policy standards,” Brian Finucane, former legal advisor to the US State Department and senior US program advisor at the International Crisis Group, told Tel Aviv Tribune.
Whether the administration will achieve this remains highly controversial.
“It is important to note that there were legal standards throughout this conflict, and the Biden administration simply did not enforce them. It may be that the situation is so dire in northern Gaza that political calculations have changed and they ultimately decide to apply US law. But we’re really past the point where they should have done it,” Finucane said.
Finucane also noted that the 30-day deadline would expire after next month’s US presidential election. “So they may feel like whatever political constraints the administration felt it was operating under, they may feel less constrained,” he said.
Miller, the State Department spokesperson, told reporters Tuesday that the election was “no factor” — but Annelle Sheline, a former State Department official who resigned earlier this year in protest against the administration’s Israel policy, disagrees.
“I interpret it as being intended to try to win over uncommitted (National Movement) voters and others in swing states who have made it clear that they are opposed to this administration’s unconditional support for Israel,” he said. Sheline told Tel Aviv Tribune. “I don’t expect to see any consequences.”
A deeper entanglement
As for whether the United States will follow through on its threats, deploying troops to Israel will send a much more concrete message of continued U.S. support, no matter how dire the humanitarian situation.
Adding to this is the U.S.-made Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, system, an advanced missile defense system that uses a combination of radars and interceptors to thwart short-, medium-, and medium-range ballistic missiles. to Israel’s already extraordinary missile defenses as it weighs its response to an Iranian missile attack earlier this month. Biden said his deployment was to “defend Israel.”
The deployment announcement comes just as Iranian officials warn that the United States is putting the lives of its troops “at risk by deploying them to operate American missile systems in Israel.”
“Even though we have made enormous efforts in recent days to contain an all-out war in our region, I clearly say that we do not have a red line to defend our people and our interests,” Iran’s foreign minister wrote on Sunday. Foreign Affairs Abbas Aragchi in a press release. .
In practice, this deployment pushes the United States further into war, at a time when American officials continue to pay lip service to diplomacy.
“Rather than force de-escalation or act to rein in Israeli officials, President Biden is doubling down on efforts to reassure Israeli leaders that he stands with them as they deliberately move toward a regional war and are escalating a genocidal campaign against the Palestinians,” Brad Parker, a lawyer and associate policy director at the Center for Constitutional Rights, told Tel Aviv Tribune.
Parker and other lawyers argue that the Biden administration is relying on narrow and broad legal arguments to try to justify a seemingly unilateral decision under U.S. law. The United States is also already implicated under international humanitarian law for the support it provided to Israel when it violated the laws of war.
“So far, the Biden administration has attempted to characterize the surge in existing deployments and the authorization of new deployments as fragmented or individual incidents. However, what is emerging is a full and robust introduction of U.S. forces into situations where participation in hostilities is imminent without any congressional authorization as required by law,” Parker said.
“All Americans should be outraged that a lame-duck president clings to narrow legal interpretations that run counter to the clear intent of current U.S. law to justify the massive deployment of military forces Americans in a regional conflagration that was partly caused by its own policies. destructive policies supporting genocide.
No Congressional Approval
Experts say deploying combat-equipped U.S. troops anywhere in the world and without congressional approval, as Biden is currently doing, could trigger U.S. laws requiring reporting to congressional committees. If deployed troops engaged in certain actions – in this case, using THAAD missiles – it would trigger a 60-day deadline for their withdrawal, or for Congress to approve a new commitment.
“This constitutes, in my view, the introduction of U.S. armed forces ‘into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,'” said Oona Hathaway, director of the Center for Global Legal Challenges at Yale Law School. , told Tel Aviv Tribune, citing federal law regulating the president’s power to engage the United States in armed conflict. “And so (it) should be authorized by Congress.”
But the United States has remained tight-lipped on the legal implications.
“The Biden administration has done everything possible to avoid recognizing the application of this law,” Finucane said. “Because firstly, this law imposes constraints, the 60-day limit on hostilities; and second, if the Biden administration recognizes that this law is in place and the constraints apply, it does not have attractive options. He can either stop the activity or go to the US Congress for war authorization. And he wants to do neither.
This would not be the first time the administration has downplayed its legal obligations as it drags the United States into conflicts abroad. For example, the United States has been fighting Houthi rebels in Yemen since October 7 without Congressional approval.
The Biden administration has justified these military operations as “self-defense” – something it may attempt to do again. The U.S. Department of Defense did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“So far, Congress has not asked the administration to explain how exactly Iran’s fire on Israel undermines U.S. security,” said Sheline, the former head of state. Department of State. “It is possible that Biden expects Iran to attack and that Congress is then eager to declare war.”