The new factors of American and Israeli power

It is a grave mistake to approach American and Israeli expansionism through the same lens, despite the apparent convergence of their projects at pivotal regional moments. Conflating them not only obscures the fundamental structural differences but also misleads us into understanding the nature of today's conflicts and the forms of control now exercised in the name of security, deterrence, or “stability.”

Expansion, as a political-strategic concept, is not singular in its motives or tools, even when it leads to similar outcomes. What unites the United States and Israel today is not a unified project, but rather an overlap of interests and a shared set of tools, at a transitional moment in which the meaning of control and influence is being redefined.

First: American Expansion… An Empire Without Maps

Historically, American expansionism has not been geographical expansion in the classical sense of ancient empires or European colonialism. Since World War II, the United States has built its global influence on a different foundation: economic and commercial dominance as the core of power, and military force as a tool to protect this influence, not as an end in itself.

Washington is not seeking territory to annex, nor flags to raise over the map. What it wants is:

• Opening markets and integrating them into the American economy,

• Protecting supply and energy routes,

• Imposing the rules of the global financial system,

• And controlling supply chains and technology.

In this sense, American expansion is an expansion of economic space, not of maps. A country may be politically “independent,” but it is economically subservient, tied to the dollar, or dependent on international financial institutions, or reliant on the American market. Here, control is achieved without occupation, and influence without direct administration.

Even American military intervention, when it occurs, is often presented as a means of ensuring this system: protecting allies, preventing market collapses, securing maritime routes, or containing forces that threaten global economic balances. Therefore, in recent years, Washington has tended to reduce direct military involvement without relinquishing influence, in a clear shift from “hard warfare” to “smart conflict management.”

Second: Israeli Expansion… Land as Identity, Not as a Tool

In contrast, the Israeli project is based on a radically different logic. Israeli expansion is ideological and historical, where land constitutes the core of the Zionist project, not merely a means. From the “Promised Land” to the doctrine of fluid borders, geography has remained an element of identity and survival, not simply a sphere of influence.

In this context, expansion cannot be separated from Israel’s founding narrative, in which land is presented as:

• a historical right,

• a security guarantee,

• a condition for the state’s existence and continuity.

However, this logic, despite its ideological entrenchment, has clashed with political, demographic, and security realities that have made direct occupation more of a burden than an asset. Prolonged ground control has become costly on multiple levels:

• Constant resistance drains the army,

• Demographic burdens threaten the "Jewish character of the state,"

• Increasing international pressure deepens political isolation.

Therefore, the Israeli project has not abandoned expansion, but rather redefined it.

Third: From Occupation to Control… Expansion in its New Form

In the current Israeli transformation, expansion is no longer synonymous with annexing or directly administering land. Today, expansion means controlling land without occupying it—that is, keeping it within the sphere of control, not within the state's borders.

Here, air superiority and technological dominance emerge as modern tools of expansion. The skies have become the substitute for the land, and technology has replaced direct civil and military administration.

This model is based on clear elements:

• Open skies with no effective deterrent,

• Intelligence and technological superiority that allows for constant surveillance,

• The ability to strike whenever and wherever it chooses,

• Imposing a diminished sense of sovereignty on adversaries.

In this model, the land may not be officially occupied, but in practice, it lacks full sovereignty. Security decisions, freedom of movement, and even daily stability remain contingent on the will of the dominant power in the air.

Fourth: Unity of tools… not unity of project

Here, the American and Israeli logics converge, at least temporarily, not because the projects are identical, but because the tools of modern control have become shared. The United States, which manages its expansion through economics and markets, finds in this Israeli model a means of controlling the region without direct involvement.

Washington does not object to Israeli air superiority as long as it:

• Prevents a major regional conflagration,

• Contains adversaries within certain limits,

• Does not drag the United States into a full-scale war.

Conversely, Israel benefits from this American cover to entrench its model of remote control, maintaining its deterrent capability without bearing the burdens of direct occupation.

However, this convergence remains a convergence of interests, not a merging of projects. When American economic calculations clash with Israeli ideological impulses, the differences become clearly apparent, as seen in the limits of war, the timing of escalation, and the management of major crises.

Fifth: Lebanon as a Model… Sovereignty Under the Sky

This transformation is most clearly evident in the Lebanese case. Lebanon today is not an occupied state in the classical sense, but it is also not a fully sovereign state. The daily violations of its airspace and Israel's ability to conduct aerial and intelligence operations without real obstacles place the country at the heart of the new expansionist model.

Here, there is no need to occupy the land:

• The skies are sufficient,

• Technology is sufficient,

• And the distorted deterrence equation is sufficient to impose political and security realities.

This is expansion in its contemporary form: no tanks on the borders, but control above them. No flags raised, only a sovereign decision suspended.

Control at minimal cost… the most dangerous form of expansion.

Ultimately, regional transformations cannot be understood without recognizing that expansion is no longer what it once was.

That's it. Land is no longer a prerequisite for control, and occupation is no longer the sole form of domination. We are facing a phase where conflicts are managed with less blatant tools, but with deeper and more impactful ones.

The United States manages its expansion through economics and trade,

and Israel manages its expansion through air power and technology,

but the shared objective is the same: control at the lowest cost and with the greatest influence.

Herein lies the danger of the coming phase, because this type of expansion is less overt, more difficult to confront, and more capable of persisting… without being called by its true name.