But what does the U.S. get from this $3 billion a year, besides a more difficult and prickly relationship with the Gulf states where the oil is?
Some people grasping at straws talk about intelligence (mostly "weapons-testing") derived from Israel, but the U.S. could have gotten a much better return on its money by investing that $100 billion in R&D.
Other people (like Alexander Haig) think that Israel somehow served the interest of the United States by winning proxy wars against Russian clients during the Cold War: that somehow Israel's military victories prevented the spread of "Communism" to the Middle East. I don't see this: neither Gamel Abdul Nasser nor Hafez Assad was in any sense a "Communist," or wished to be a "Communist" (who in their right mind would want to be in the same position vis-a-vis the Soviet Union as Gomulka?). And the only thing that could possibly drive them to becoming Communists was... fear of Israel.
Hell. Remember Ariel Sharon's last adventure, "Peace for Galilee"? Alexander Haig cheering because "our guys" were beating "the Russians' guys"? About how Israeli victory was wiping Russian influence out of the Middle East? And how in its aftermath Hafez Assad (no fool) cozied up to the Soviet Union in the belief that maintaining his distance and independence from the Soviets was unhealthy given the Israeli's demonstrated willingness to drive their tanks wherever they wished?
IIRC, the Pentagon was seriously scared in the aftermath that a couple of Soviet tank corps would wind up stationed around Damascus...
As I said, the U.S. commitment to Israel has very different roots from the realist geopoliics of empire. And the $3 billion a year is the result of a (mis) calculation that an Israel confident of American support would be more willing to deal...
Brad DeLong