Who Actually Makes the Decisions for Foreign Policy in the US? Conflict Within the Bureaucracy
In order to study the subject of
who “really makes the decisions” related to
the domestic and foreign policies we should recognize the dialectic
connections between the capitalism, state, and bureaucracy and study the
question based on the general theories and concrete realities in its specific.
Marx stated that state is the
oppression apparatus of class over other classes. Lenin, summarizing the
works of Karl Marx explained that the
state arises from the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. It exists to
manage this conflict in a way that keeps the propertyless majority in check to
benefit the property-owning minority. It
operates and enforces its laws directly through "armed
bodies of men"; entities like police, military, courts, and prisons. Indirectly,
the state maintains dominance by reproducing the ruling class ideology through
institutions like education and media. (1) This statements above explains
everything in general but does not explain it in a way that is
cognizable by average, mostly by the majority of people. In other words it
explains nothing for them.
Who really decides US foreign policy? Is it the President? Congress? The “deep state”? The Israeli lobby? The mainstream media offers no shortage of answers, but almost all of them obscure more than they reveal. This article argues that the only correct answer must begin from a class perspective. Decisions for US foreign policy are made by a fused “finance‑industrial‑military bureaucracy” ; the institutional expression of the ruling class in its monopoly stage. Conflicts exist, but they are “non‑antagonistic”; they occur within the bureaucracy and between its different factions, not between fundamentally opposed fractions of capital. The popular claim that “Israel controls the US” is not an explanation of US foreign policy – it is a “damage control mechanism” designed to shift blame for decades of warmongering onto a convenient scapegoat, thereby preserving the legitimacy of American imperialism. In this article I will develop these theses step by step, moving from the general theory of capitalism, state, and bureaucracy to the concrete realities of US policy on Israel and Iran.
Since we will be talking about the
current situation in our new epoch, we should start examining the subject
of monopoly capitalism and finance capitalism
Capitalism: From Free
Competition to Finance Capital
We should always keep in mind
Lenin’s warning in his definition while studying the subject that “imperialism can and must be defined
differently if we bear in mind not only the basic, purely economic
concepts—to which the above definition is limited..” (2) Because,
as Stalin stated “ needless to
say that there can be no concrete historical analysis of war, if that analysis
does not have for its basis a full understanding of the nature of imperialism,
both from its economic and political aspects. Without this, it is
impossible to approach an understanding of the economic and diplomatic
situation of the last decades, and without such an understanding, it is
ridiculous even to speak of forming a correct view on war. (3)
Under pre‐monopoly
capitalism the dominance of free competition led to an equalization of the
rate of profit of individual capitalists, under imperialism the
monopolies ensure for themselves a monopolistically high, maximum profit. It is
the maximum profit that is the engine of monopoly capitalism.” (4)
When Lenin stated, “imperialism is merely monopoly capitalism” he was
actually talking about in its transformation into finance capital: the
fusion of financial and industrial capital. (5)
It is important to note that
“monopolies” generally refer to single entities controlling an entire market for
a given particular goods or services. “The objective conditions for obtaining
maximum profits are created by the establishment of the dominance of monopolies
in certain branches of production. At the stage of imperialism, the
concentration and centralization of capital reached its highest degree. Because of this, the
expansion of production required huge capital investments. The fierce
competitive struggles between gigantic enterprises brought about the
dominance of finance capital in monopolization of industries. ” (5) Lenin wrote:
“We see the rapid expansion of a
close network of channels which cover the whole country, centralizing all
capital and all revenues, transforming thousands and thousands of scattered
economic enterprises into a single national, capitalist, and then into a world
capitalist economy.” (6)
His prediction has been
confirmed. Foreign direct investment,
international trade, and industrial transfers have reached new heights,
to the degree of internationalization of production and circulation which
overshadowed the single product “monopoly capitalist” era of the past (for few
countries). The capital redistributed globally from production to
circulation. This brought about concentration of capital and lead to
multinational finance capital corporations. These corporations developed
links with the rest of the finance capital and formed financial monopoly
organizations. They controlled and run international production, trade,
banking, transactions, and exchange values. They have shaped the domestic
and world economic and political system aligned with their needs in
order to eliminate any barriers. They have made up the “class” that owns
and controls the state over other “classes” because state is nothing but
the most general organization of the ruling classes.
The US Exception: Fusion and Deindustrialization
In the United States today, the
classical distinction between “finance capital” and “industrial capital” has
become largely obsolete. The fusion of the two has created a single,
integrated global entity. Moreover, the US has effectively de‑industrialised,
with the exception of military production, technology, energy, and food – all of which are themselves deeply financialized and militarized.
Production moved out of the US in search of cheap labour and resources. This,
in turn, required the strengthening of the military‑tech‑energy
complex. The militarization of industry is an inevitable consequence of
finance capitalism in its imperialist stage. Therefore, any analysis
that tries to find a conflict between “finance” and “industry” within the US ruling class is chasing a ghost. The
conflict, as we shall see, lies elsewhere – inside
the “bureaucracy”.
The State: Instrument of Class Rule
In the epoch of finance
capitalism, the state undergoes a transformation. “In the beginning, the
state is the sole organisation of the ruling class. Then other organisations
(trade associations, think tanks, lobbies) spring up. The state is transformed
from the “sole” organisation into “one” of the organisations of the ruling
class. Finally, a third stage arrives, in which the state swallows up these
organisations and once again becomes the “sole universal organisation” of the
ruling class. The once‑independent organisational groupings become divisions
of a gigantic state mechanism.” (7)
In this epoch, On the world market, as well as on national
markets, the struggle between powerful capitalist trusts is waged along three
main lines: 1) the struggle for markets,2) struggle for raw material
markets, 3) the struggle for capital investment markets. These
competitions are closely connected with each other and represent the three
sides of the single capitalist competition. Competition transferring
to the world market, leads to the transformation of “peaceful”
competition into a competition where the force is used, lead to the birth
of imperialism as an inevitable policy of modern states.” (8)
Thus the state, in its
single combined meaning and function, is a “bureaucratic administration”
in the service of the ruling class.
Bureaucracy: The Knowledge the Ruling Class Lacks
The owners and shareholders of
finance and industrial capital are not super‑human beings expert in every field
– economy, trade, politics, military,
information warfare. They cultivate and hire “bureaucrats” who will serve their
interests, and serve them best.
Bureaucracy has a long history,
going back to old monarchies and feudal systems. Lenin says that “ the
bureaucracy was the first political instrument of the bourgeoisie against the feudal lords, and against the
representatives of the “old-nobility” system in general, and marked the first
appearance in the arena of political rule of people who were not high-born
landowners, but commoners, “middle class” and from the very conditions
of the formation and recruitment of this class, which is open only to
bourgeois “offspring of the people,” and is connected with that bourgeoisie
by thousands of strong ties. …. every bureaucracy, by its historical
origin, its contemporary source, and its purpose, is purely and exclusively
a bourgeois institution”. (9)
After the transition from
Feudalism to Capitalism, the bureaucracy remains an administrative arm
of the ruling class, as Lenin puts it;
“in a capitalist state which is centralized, not by the arbitrary
will of the bureaucracy, but by the inexorable demands of economic
development, that organisation must find expression in a single force welded
together throughout the state.” (10)
Bureaucracy is the knowledge
and expertise that the ruling class lacks, occupying privileged positions
compared to the oppressed majority. As Marx took up Hegel’s definition:
“The executive is nothing but the
administration, which he develops as the bureaucracy… Indeed, bureaucracy is
merely the formalism of a content which lies outside the bureaucracy itself.
The bureaucracy is the state formalism of civil society… The aims of the state
are transformed into aims of bureaus, or the aims of bureaus into the aims
of the state. The bureaucracy is a circle from which no one can escape.
Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of knowledge…..” (11)
The state and, as Lenin
definition, “the civil service, the
bureaucracy, as representing a special category of persons who
specialise in the work of administration and occupy a privileged
position as compared with the people. We see this institution everywhere, from
autocratic and semi-Asiatic Russia to cultured, free and civilised England, as
an essential organ of bourgeois
society.”(12)
Engels gave a striking example of
the ruling class’s lack of political knowledge: where the bourgeoisie was
politically far less educated, the liberal bureaucracy walked into office and
professed to hold power in trust for them. We have further seen, how the
parties and classes of society, that were heretofore all united in opposition
to the old government, got divided among themselves after the victory, or even
during the struggle; and how that same liberal bourgeoisie that alone
profited from the victory turned round immediately upon its allies of
yesterday, assumed a hostile attitude against every class or party of a more
advanced character, and concluded an alliance with the conquered feudal and
bureaucratic interests.” (13)
Marx’s definition – “bureaucracy
was only the means of preparing the class rule of the bourgeoisie… under
the parliamentary republic, it was the instrument of the ruling class” –
clearly answers the question of who really makes policy decisions. (14)
In the case of US, we always
have to make a distinction between “elected bureaucrats” through election
scheme, and “non-elected bureaucrats” who have been placed in key
positions by the ruling elite, plus the cultivated academicians and experts.
On the November 2024 election, I
commented ; “Is or will Trump be the tool of the Neo-Cons for a "face
saving exit" from the problems they are facing not only domestically but
world wide? One more "free
election" and "democracy" play ended on US stage in where
American people were given the "right" to choose "one"
out of "two" parties of the elite establishment. Trump came out
to be the triumphant one -since people did not have any other option. Will there be any change in the US foreign
policy? The same non-elected bureaucratic structure established by the
elites will keep on making decisions on any decisive policies related to
the interests of the military industrial complex and finance capital. The same
lobbies of the financial industry will
keep on buying the representatives and congressman to act in line with their
interests… US is going through not only
an economic crises, but political-strategic crises in the world. The
crises are not easy to tackle like before, during the mono-polar world order.
Multipolar world order has become a world reality. As I have argued in few
articles, US is looking for a "face saving exit" from the Ukraine
war. Now facing another serious problem in Middle East most likely for which they may have to seek another
way of "face saving exit"… Here comes the scene the
"useful....." Trump. Probably, actually most likely, have been chosen
as a great scapegoat candidate for all the previous and following negative
developments and face saving exit practices… The argument that "Trump
did beat the Neo-Cons " is a bourgeois left-liberal argument that does
not reflect any realities and totally disconnected from the "political
realities of the US. (15)
One cannot claim to have
democracy and at the same time claim Trump has the full authority on
every decisions.
The Locus of Conflict: Within Bureaucracy, Not Between
Fractions of Capital
As we study the example of US, we
should bear in mind that US is not the world, not all stated above can be applied to all since there are countries in the world who are at
the stage of pre-monopoly or monopoly
capitalist structure. Meaning that not through pedantic assessments based on
learned by rote and sloganized general theories and application of ready-made
schemes, but objective assessments set the foundation for drawing correct
practical conclusions through studying each case concretely. Because “Marxist dialectical method forbids the
employment of 'ready-made schemes' and abstract formulas, but demands the
thorough, detailed analysis of a process in all its concreteness, basing its
conclusions only on such an analysis. The dialectical method demands, first,
that we should consider things, not each by itself, but always in their
interconnection with other things…Nevertheless, it is an “obvious” principle
which is very often ignored and is extremely important to remember…. since the
very essence of metaphysics is to think of things in an abstract way, isolated
from their relations with other things and from the concrete circumstances in
which they exist. (16)
Because finance and industrial
capital are fused in the contemporary United States, there is no
antagonistic contradiction between them. The classical Leninist analysis of
inter‑imperialist
rivalries (between, say, German and British finance capital) still applies
globally, but “within” the US ruling class the conflicts are “non‑antagonistic”.
They are tactical disagreements among different bureaucratic factions
over “how best” to preserve and extend US global hegemony.
The U.S. state apparatus,
designed to serve the ruling class, is not a monolithic entity. It is a
collection of powerful bureaucracies that jealously guard their own resources,
authority, and policy preferences. This leads to intense, persistent, and often
crippling “bureaucratic” infighting.
These conflicts manifest as “bureaucratic
turf wars”. For example, the current deep rivalry between the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence (ODNI) has become so severe that the CIA has stopped participating
in some ODNI assessments, actively disrupting national security analysis.
Similarly, there are persistent tensions between political appointees (e.g.,
White House national security staff) and the permanent career bureaucracy
(e.g., State Department foreign service officers). These are not struggles
between capitalists and workers, nor between “good” and “bad” capital. They
are family quarrels within the ruling class’s own administrative apparatus.
Any conflict in a country such
as US among the ruling classes (regardless of the existence of fusion of financial and industrial capital) could be non-antagonistic but in
the direction of conciliation and unification. Here lies the danger of
fascism which primarily functions as a unifying power by a section of
capital that becomes dominant not through force but through its
bureaucrats; elected, non-elected, academic, think tank expert bureaucrats.
This conflict overtly presenting itself in the US through discussions,
commentaries and media is arising from the different point of views of the
bureaucrats on the issues like war, especially that of Iran war and role of
Israel, each of whom claim to be presenting the best solutions that will
serve the interests of Financial-industry capital; the interests of US state
since people associate their interests with the interests of finance capital.
Two Dialectically Connected Current Issues: Israel/Palestine and the Threat of
War with Iran
Discussions on the reasons
for a war on Iran have two different points of view; 1) US is
following and carrying out the desires and demands of Israel, 2) US did not
give up on dismantling Russia but replaced the course which was blockading and
weaking China through weaking and dismantling Russia first, to first China and
then Russia. As far as ‘for whom the war will be waged against Iran is
concerned, it is mutually inclusive and complimentary of
both Israel and US. Israel has its owned opportunistic reasons
so does the US… For US this war, could not be a winnable war against
Iran. They probably will cause significant damage to Iran, but they will
not be able to defeat Iran. Primarily, Israel will be on the worst
looser side of this war. The fate of Israel already questionable the
way it is, a war against Iran could remove that question and be a practical
response… Will a war against Iran be in the interests of Finance capital and of
all other industries? I doubt it. The only industry that never loses
is military Industry which makes money regardless of win or lose. It
is not an “independent” industry but a part of Finance Capital Conglomerate who
has financial stakes in every industry, in every trade, in every phase of
commercial life. The interests of “part” is always
subordinated to the interests of “whole”, in this case cost will overweigh the
benefits in a destructive way. ” (17)
The most visible bureaucratic
conflicts today revolve around two linked questions:
1. “The question of Israel”
– especially unconditional support for the genocidal war in Gaza.
2. “The question of war” –
specifically whether and when to attack Iran.
On both issues, there are “sharply
differing points of view” among bureaucrats – academic experts, think‑tank
analysts, intelligence officials, military officers, and elected politicians.
One faction argues for unlimited support for Israel and a willingness to go to
war with Iran (either directly or through Israel). Another faction – more cautious, often from the realist wing of the intelligence
community – argues that unconditional support for
Israel is damaging US global standing and that a war with Iran would be
catastrophic, especially in the emerging multipolar competition with China.
This calculation of benefit
versus loss by the bureaucrats in general differs on both questions yet
gradually the question of Israel gaining track on the opponent side. It seems
that the bureaucrats for Military Industry are strongly proponent of Israel.
However, as I have noted, ”the thinktank group of the finance capital
who have the final say on any decision that will affect their interests are
not a bunch of utopians but objective analyzers to determine the policies
in line with their interests to follow... US will remain to be
bellicose and aggressive in its rhetoric whether it has the power or not.” (18)
But note carefully: “both
factions agree” that the enemy is Iran, that the US‑Israel
alliance is a strategic asset, and that US global hegemony must be maintained. The
disagreement is only over “tactics and timing”. This is the very definition
of a non‑antagonistic contradiction.
To understand foreign policy
making, we must distinguish between two categories of bureaucrats:
“Elected bureaucrats” –
presidents, senators, representatives. They rotate in and out of office, they
perform democracy, and they are the public face of the system. But their
power is severely limited by campaign finance, lobbying, and the permanent
state apparatus.
“Non‑elected bureaucrats” – career civil servants, intelligence officers, military brass,
Federal Reserve officials, and the network of think‑tank and
academic experts who move in and out of government. These are the people who
provide “continuity”. They draft policy, manage crises, and ensure that the
basic interests of the ruling class are protected regardless of which elected
official holds office.
What we are witnessing today in
U.S. media, debates, and think-tank publications is not a conflict "between"
the ruling class and some opposing popular force. It is a conflict "among
bureaucrats"—different wings of the same class, different institutional
loyalties, different tactical assessments—arguing openly about: The limits
of U.S. support for Israel: Some argue for unconditional support regardless
of international law or regional escalation. Others (a minority, but growing)
warn that blind support is damaging U.S. global standing and may entangle the
U.S. in a forever war. But virtually none question the fundamental U.S.-Israel
alliance. The necessity and timing of war with Iran: One faction (closer
to the Israeli lobby, neoconservatives, and parts of the military-industrial
complex) pushes for direct military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities or
its proxies. Another faction (more cautious, often from the intelligence
bureaucracy or realist think-tanks) argues that a direct war would be
disastrous, preferring continued sanctions, cyber warfare, and assassination
campaigns.
The real decisions are made by
the “non‑elected bureaucracy”, acting within the broad
parameters set by finance capital. The elected officials ratify, they perform,
and occasionally they are allowed to debate – but they
do not decide.
The Illusion That “Israel Controls the US”
“I believe that the claim ”
Israel controls US foreign policy” consciously or unconsciously, directly, or
indirectly is a part of a long “damage control” process. US is
increasingly being isolated from the world due to unilateral,
unjustified wars, economic sanctions, and its support to genocidal
war in Palestine. The repeated and wide spread argument that
“the US government is controlled by Israeli Lobby” is gaining
traction among the US population and there is a growing opposition to
Israel. That argument eventually may be used to shift
the sins of entire US warmongering policy and unjustified wars to
Israel. The more that argument gains traction world wide, the easier
to convince the world that it was not the US, but Israel (controlling
the US governments) who is behind all those wars and murders of
millions of people world wide and destruction of countries… The “damage
control” process in the long run may well turn Israel from special
-exception to a "subject” of general; an expendable one.” (19)
The influence of the
"Zionist lobby," primarily the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC), is a critical and unique factor in U.S. foreign
policymaking. For decades, AIPAC has served as a singularly powerful organized
interest group, successfully bending U.S. policy in the Middle East to serve
Israeli interests. Through immense campaign financing and lobbying, its power
has been such that opposing it was widely considered political suicide.
However, this very power has now
become a source of significant internal conflict within the ruling political
class. A growing number of politicians, particularly within the Democratic
Party, are now openly challenging AIPAC, creating a rare public fracture in a
foreign policy domain that was once strictly bipartisan.
In my article dated April 25, I
stated that “the possibility of an act of war against Iran seems to be high.
However, if we are not considering Trump as a king but a bureaucrat
in a country where just a lobby, in this case Israeli Lobby, can
extend immense power in decision making, .. The historically
proven political fact that bureaucracy by itself is not an “elite”,
“ruling” class, but a social class that does not create a
"value", but controls the process of coordination,
distribution, and consumption of the created "value that serves
to the interests of dominant classes; it is fair to say that the final
decision will be made by the dominant classes in accord with and through
their “non-elected” members of the state institutions which has
vast think-thank experts to make sure that the decisions... In all cases
the benefit has to always overweigh the cost of any action. “ (19)
The claim that “Israel
controls US foreign policy” is heard increasingly often, even among some on
the left. At first glance, it seems plausible: AIPAC and the Zionist lobby are
extraordinarily powerful; US Middle East policy has aligned with Israeli
demands for decades; and many Jewish Americans hold influential positions in
finance, media, and government.
But to argue that Israel controls
the US, one would have to demonstrate that the US ruling class – the finance
capital that owns and controls the state – is itself subordinate to an Israeli
ruling class. That is empirically false and theoretically incoherent. Finance
capital is transnational, but its primary nodal points remain in the imperial
core, above all the United States. American finance capital is the “global
headquarters” of contemporary capitalism. Israeli capital is a junior
partner – useful, well‑connected, but ultimately
subordinate.
The Zionist lobby is best
understood as an “organised fraction of the US ruling class” that specializes
in maintaining the US‑Israel alliance. Its members are American citizens; its
funding is American capital; its function is to ensure that US Middle East
policy serves the joint interests of US and Israeli finance capital – with “US interests always paramount”.
The Iran Case as a Test
If Israel controlled the US, then
US policy on Iran would be whatever Israel demands – likely direct
military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, or full US backing for an
Israeli strike. That has “not” happened, despite decades of Israeli pressure.
Instead, the US has vacillated: sanctions, assassinations, cyber
attacks, but no full‑scale war. Why? Because the US ruling class has
calculated that a war with Iran would be disastrous for its global interests
– and that calculation has outweighed
Israeli demands.
History shows the pattern
clearly:
The US abandoned the Shah of
Iran in 1979 when he became a liability.
The US pressured Israel during the Suez
Crisis in 1956.
The US has repeatedly restrained Israel
from escalating with Hezbollah or Iran when it judged the risks too high.
Israel is a “client state”, not
a master. A powerful client, with significant bureaucratic influence
inside the US apparatus – but a client, nonetheless. The Iran case proves that when
the cost‑benefit ratio shifts, the US ruling class acts
in its own interest, not Israel’s.
The “Israel Controls the US” Narrative as Damage Control
For decades, Israel occupied a
unique position within US foreign policy: an exception to virtually every rule.
No other country receives such unconditional military, economic, and diplomatic
support. No other country can provoke a US veto at the UN Security Council with
impunity. No other country’s lobby has such influence over the US Congress.
This brings us to the most subtle
and original part of the analysis. The claim that “Israel controls US foreign
policy” – whether made consciously or unconsciously, directly, or indirectly – serves
a “damage control function” for US imperialism.
The United States is increasingly
isolated from the world due to its unilateral, unjustified wars, its economic
sanctions that amount to collective punishment, and its support for the
genocidal war in Palestine. As US global standing deteriorates, the ruling
class faces a legitimacy crisis. The American people, and increasingly people
around the world, ask: “Why does US government do these terrible things?”
The popular answer gaining
traction – “the government is controlled by the Israeli lobby” – has
three political utilities for the ruling class:
1. “Shifting blame outward”:
If Israel controls US policy, then the crimes are not American crimes – they
are Israeli crimes committed through American instruments. The US becomes a
victim or a hostage, not a perpetrator.
2. “Deflecting class analysis”:
The narrative replaces *class* with *ethnicity/nationality*. The enemy becomes
“the Jews” or “Israel,” not finance capital.
3. “Creating a safety valve”:
As opposition to Israel grows among the US population, the narrative allows
that opposition to be expressed “without” challenging the fundamental structure
of US imperialism.
In the long run, it may turn
Israel from a “special exception” into a “subject of the general” – in other words, “expendable”. If the
US public believes that Israel controls the government, the logical conclusion
is: “We must break that control”. Breaking that control means treating Israel
like any other client state – useful when
interests align, disposable when they do not.
Thus, the very narrative that
seems to acknowledge Israeli power actually “prepares the ground for
Israeli abandonment”. It is a damage control mechanism that may eventually
make Israel the scapegoat for all of US warmongering – and then cast it
aside.
Conclusion
We can now answer the title
question directly.
“Who makes foreign policy
decisions in the US?” The fused
finance‑industrial‑military
bureaucracy – the institutional expression of the
US ruling class. Not “elected officials,” not “the people,” not the “deep state” as a separate entity, but the integrated class apparatus
of monopoly capital.
“What is the nature of
conflict within the bureaucracy?” Non‑antagonistic contradictions
between different factions of the same ruling class – different tactical assessments of how to preserve and extend US
global hegemony. These conflicts are real, open, and sometimes sharp, but they
always tend toward conciliation and unification against any external or
internal threat to class rule.
“Does Israel control the US?” No.
The alignment of US and Israeli interests has been historically high, but that
alignment is a product of shared class interests, not Israeli domination.
The US ruling class controls Israel as a strategic asset. If and when
the cost‑benefit ratio changes – as it is
changing in the multipolar transition – the US will
abandon or restrain Israel without hesitation.
“What is the ideological function
of the “Israel controls the US” narrative?”
It is a damage control mechanism
that shifts blame for US warmongering onto Israel, preserving the myth of
American benevolence while channeling popular anger away from finance
capital. However, this narrative is double‑edged: it ultimately makes Israel
expendable by transforming it from an exception into a scapegoat.
“What is the danger ahead?” Not
that Israel controls the US, and not that the US will collapse. The danger
is “fascism” – the unification of the ruling class behind a militarized,
authoritarian executive that suppresses all internal dissent, scapegoats
external enemies (real or constructed), and presents itself as the only
alternative to chaos. The “Israel controls the US” narrative, if weaponized,
could become a central pillar of that fascist mobilisation: “We must free
America from foreign control” is a classic fascist slogan, regardless of
whether the “foreign control” is real or imagined.
The reader who wishes to
understand US foreign policy must abandon the comfortable frameworks of liberal
democracy (where “checks and balances” matter) and left‑liberal
conspiracy theories (where “neocons” act
autonomously). Only a “class perspective” –
materialist, dialectical, and unforgiving – can
answer the question: “Who actually makes the decisions?” The answer is
finance capital, organised through the state bureaucracy. Conflicts within the
bureaucracy are real but non‑antagonistic. And the claim
that “Israel controls the US” is not an explanation – it is a symptom
of the very crisis of legitimacy that US imperialism is trying to manage.
If we look at the question within The Unipolar vs. Multipolar Context; In
the unipolar era (post-1991), the alignment of US and Israeli interests was
nearly perfect. The US needed a reliable enforcer in the Middle East;
Israel needed a global superpower patron. There was no significant cost to the
US for supporting Israel’s most aggressive policies.
In the emerging multipolar
era, this alignment is fraying. The US now faces existential competition
from China and a resurgent Russia. Global South is asserting its independence.
The “rules-based international order” is collapsing under the weight of its
own hypocrisy. In this context, unconditional support for Israel is becoming
a ”liability” because It drives BRICS nations closer together
against the US, - It isolates the US in the UN General Assembly year after year,
- It fuels anti-American sentiment across the Muslim world (2 billion people)
and beyond,- It risks a regional war that would drain US resources needed for
the real competition with China.
When the liabilities outweigh
the benefits, finance capital will act. Israel will be informed—not
asked—that US policy has changed. The lobby will be managed, not obeyed. And
if the “Israel controls the US” narrative has done its damage control
work, the American public will cheer the abandonment, believing they are
finally “free” of Israeli control—never understanding that they remain under
the control of finance capital.
Iran will most likely be the ultimate confirming test for the correctness of the Marxist
Leninist analysis based on existing condition and facts.
Erdogan A
July 13, 2026
NOTES
(1) Lenin, The state and
revolution, class society, and the state
(2) Lenin, Imperialism, the
Highest Stage of Capitalism
(3) Stalin, 7th Extended Plenary Session of the
ICCI
(4) Basic Economic Law of
Monopoly Capitalism, 1954
(5) Lenin, “The Impending
Catastrophe and How to Combat It”
(6) Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of
Capitalism
(7) Bukharin, Toward a Theory of
the Imperialist State
(8) A. Koh, Finance capital,
Imperialism and War 1927
(9) Lenin, The Economic Content of Narodism, and
the Criticism of it
(10) Lenin, The Agrarian Programme of
Social-Democracy in the First Russian Revolution
(11) Karl Marx, 1843 From
Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right
(12) Lenin, From, The Tasks of
the Russian Social-Democrats
(13) Frederick Engels, Revolution
and Counter-revolution in Germany
(14) Karl Marx, From The Eighteenth Brumaire of
Louis Bonaparte
(15) Erdogan , Trump as the tool
of the Neo-Cons for a “face saving exit” from the problems US is facing
(16) Lenin, Guerrilla Warfare
(17) Erdogan, War against Iran; a prelude to war against
China?
(18) War against Iran; a prelude
to war against China?
(19) Erdogan, Ongoing debate on
who controls whom? Does Israel
control USA, or USA control Israel?
.jpg)
