The once-tight American-Israeli relationship could be undergoing some significant changes, especially in terms of military protection.

Two recent events illustrate this possibility.

At his Senate confirmation hearing on December 5, incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that he would only suggest using American military might against Iran as “an absolute last resort.” Acknowledging the possibility that Iran could undertake a nuclear strike against Israel at some point, Gates called Iran’s atomic weapons program “a deterrent against nuclear powers surrounding it, Pakistan in the east, Russia in the north, Israel to the west and America in the Persian Gulf.”

Up till now, perhaps the biggest defense Israel has had against Iran and its other enemies has been its alliance with the United States. Gates’s comment, though, suggests that some American foreign policy changes could be afoot that will weaken that alliance. As suggested by Gates, these changes might include a more gun-shy U.S., choosing to increase dialogue with Iran and Syria rather than hold their feet to the fire.

The second indicator was the recommendations of James Baker and the Iraq Study Group (isg), which were shockingly unfavorable to Israel. Insight magazine reported,

The White House has been examining a proposal by James Baker to launch a Middle East peace effort without Israel.The peace effort would begin with a U.S.-organized conference, dubbed Madrid-2, and contain such U.S. adversaries as Iran and Syria. Officials said Madrid-2 would be promoted as a forum to discuss Iraq’s future, but actually focus on Arab demands for Israel to withdraw from territories captured in the 1967 war. They said Israel would not be invited to the conference.”As Baker sees this, the conference would provide a unique opportunity for the United States to strike a deal without Jewish pressure,” an official said. “This has become the most hottest proposal examined by the foreign policy people over the last month.”

Though the proposals of Baker and the isg have largely been sidelined since then, not two weeks ago this Insight piece said this Israel-free meeting was supported by the current U.S. secretary of state, undersecretary of state and national intelligence director. The article continued (emphasis ours):

Under the Baker proposal, the Bush administration would arrange a Middle East conference that would discuss the future of Iraq and other Middle East issues. Officials said the conference would seek to win Arab support on Iraq in exchange for a U.S. pledge to renew efforts to press Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Golan Heights.”Baker sees his plan as containing something for everybody, except perhaps the Israelis,” the official said. “The Syrians would get back the Golan, the Iranians would get U.S. recognition and the Saudis would regain their influence, particularly with the Palestinians.”

If Gates’s statements are combined with the Baker and isg policy suggestions, Israel could not be faulted for concluding that the convergence of American and Israeli interests in the Middle East is faltering—a development that is indicated in Scripture.

In the meantime, because the United States is unwilling to confront Iran and Syria, Israel has been looking north into Europe for support against its radical neighbors. In an unannounced meeting last Monday in Germany, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with Chancellor Angela Merkel. Olmert and Merkel took three hours to discuss a variety of issues. Among the issues of critical concern to Israel was Iran’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons. In the meeting, Merkel renewed Germany’s promise to stand by Israel. “Israel will never face Iran alone. Germany will be beside it like a fortified wall,” Merkel said.

With the U.S. backed into a corner over Iraq, compelled to rely on Iran’s cooperation to extricate itself, it is in no position to be there for Israel. As Israel looks elsewhere for security, we can expect the Israeli-German relationship to grow.