The Theatre of Distrust: Power, Deception, and the Collapse of International Trust - Series II

Abstract
Building on the concept of mutually assured suspicion, this paper examines how the U.S.–Israel alliance functions as a model of transactional hegemony—an arrangement sustained by symbolic legitimacy, military patronage, and the politics of fear. The study explores how Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu’s militarized rhetoric reveals the market logic of alliance politics, where loyalty is exchanged for strategic utility. Using a Gramscian lens on hegemony and insights from realist and constructivist traditions, the paper argues that trust has been replaced by a political economy of dependence and fear, with global implications for the future of alliance management.

Keywords: transactional hegemony, U.S.–Israel relations, militarized diplomacy, alliance politics, Gramsci, global order

Introduction

This introductory section examines the evolving relationships among these factions, tracing the shift from trust to transaction—that is, viewing alliances as markets of influence.

The alliance between the United States and Israel has long been described as “special,” rooted in shared democratic values, religious affinities, and security interests. Yet in practice, it represents one of the clearest manifestations of transactional hegemony—a form of dominance sustained not by moral legitimacy but by the exchange of political, military, and ideological capital.

This transformation signals a broader shift in global politics: the commodification of alliance behavior, where loyalty becomes a tradable asset and moral restraint yields to the logic of exchange. As the notion of trust collapses in international relations, alliances resemble marketplaces in which fear, legitimacy, and influence are the currencies of survival.

Theoretical Lens: Realism, Hegemonic Stability, and Gramscian Power

Realism, especially in the Morgenthau–Waltz tradition, views alliances as instruments of national interest—temporary and self-serving. Hegemonic stability theory (Keohane, 2018) adds that order is maintained when one power provides public goods such as security or economic stability. However, in the twenty-first century, this stabilizing function has eroded.

From a Gramscian perspective, hegemony is not simply coercive but also ideological: it operates through consent and cultural leadership. Yet, the U.S.–Israel relationship reveals a paradoxical hegemony—one that sustains itself through dependency and moral exceptionalism, rather than consent. Israel’s geopolitical leverage stems not from subordination but from its ability to manipulate American domestic politics and moral narratives.

Thus, transactional hegemony fuses Gramsci’s notion of ideological control with realist materialism: it is a hegemonic relationship stripped of its ethical facade, where trust is replaced by negotiated dominance.

The Political Economy of the U.S.–Israel Alliance: Aid, Arms, and Ideological Alignment

The U.S. provides Israel with over $3.8 billion annually in military aid—the largest sustained aid package to any foreign state. This support functions less as charity than as reciprocal investment in regional dominance and domestic politics.

In economic terms, this is a patron–client exchange, but in symbolic terms, it is a mutual dependency. Israel delivers intelligence, regional influence, and ideological legitimacy for U.S. interventions in the Middle East. In return, Washington guarantees diplomatic protection, vetoes at the United Nations, and a near-unconditional flow of arms.

The relationship thus mirrors a political market, where Israel’s geopolitical indispensability is continually reasserted to justify the perpetuation of U.S. hegemony in a region increasingly resistant to Western presence.

Trump–Netanyahu Convergence: Populism, Militarism, and Symbolic Exchange

The Trump–Netanyahu era (2016–2021) epitomized the transactional nature of this alliance. Both leaders relied on nationalist populism and militarized rhetoric to consolidate domestic legitimacy while reinforcing each other’s narratives of external threat.

Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and endorsement of the Golan Heights annexation were not acts of trust but acts of symbolic barter—political gifts exchanged for electoral support among evangelical constituencies and pro-Israel lobbies.

Netanyahu, in turn, offered Trump validation as a “friend of Israel,” amplifying his moral capital on the global stage. This performative diplomacy reveals how hegemony today is staged rather than substantiated—a theatre of mutual validation in which power and trust have been replaced by visibility and performance.

Moral Erosion and International Law: From Deterrence to Impunity

Transactional hegemony erodes not only moral norms but also the legal foundations of international order. Israel’s frequent violations of international law—from settlement expansion to disproportionate military action—are tolerated under the logic of “strategic necessity.”

The U.S., acting as both patron and shield, transforms deterrence into impunity. The moral language of democracy and human rights becomes instrumentalized to justify asymmetry. In this configuration, law becomes conditional, applicable only when it serves hegemonic interests.

This dynamic reflects what Nye (2020) calls the “moral failure of power”—a condition in which states pursue influence without moral restraint, thereby normalizing distrust and eroding the legitimacy of international institutions.

Transactional Hegemony in Global Context: Lessons for U.S.–Saudi and U.S.–Ukraine Partnerships

The U.S.–Israel case illustrates a broader global pattern of transactional diplomacy. Similar logics operate in the U.S.–Saudi partnership, where energy and arms replace shared values, and in the U.S.–Ukraine alliance, where military aid functions as a political investment in containing Russia.

These arrangements, though stabilizing in the short term, produce strategic fragility. When alliances are built on transaction rather than trust, they become vulnerable to leadership changes, domestic populism, and economic shifts. The economy of power becomes unsustainable without shared norms or moral cohesion.

Conclusion

This article concludes that the relationships among these nations can best be described as the death of trust and the rise of power as currency. The U.S.–Israel alliance stands as a paradigmatic case of power as currency—a world where trust no longer underpins order, and relationships persist only as long as they yield strategic profit.

Transactional hegemony, as this paper has argued, marks the post-trust era of global politics. It signals not merely the decline of moral leadership but the collapse of the ideological infrastructure that once legitimized American dominance.

Restoring trust in international relations requires redefining hegemony as responsibility, not transaction—a shift from markets of power to communities of accountability. Until then, alliances will remain fragile theatres where deception sustains order and power masquerades as partnership.

Selected References

Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge University Press.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. International Publishers.

Keohane, R. O. (2018). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.

Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Knopf.

Nye, J. S. Jr. (2020). Do Morals Matter? Presidents and Foreign Policy from FDR to Trump. Oxford University Press.

Pappé, I. (2021). The Biggest Prison on Earth: A History of the Occupied Territories. Oneworld Publications.

Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley.