Why is the West supporting Israel more than Ukraine?

Yesterday, Iran conducted a massive airstrike on Israel. About 300 drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles were used in the attack, but the damages were limited. Israel managed to shoot down almost all the incoming threats, so only a small number actually hit their targets.

It seems clear that Iran did not intend to cause significant damage. The point of the attack was to send a message following an Israeli attack on the Iranian Consulate in Damascus earlier this month, but it was not to start a direct war between Iran and Israel. This seems obvious for a couple of reasons. First, Iran gave prior notice before the attack so Israel and their partners (especially the United States) could be ready to intercept the incoming drones and missiles. And second, Israel has some of the best air defense in the world, and Iran hardly expected many of the missiles to get through. In other words, it was a classic example of how military force is used to send diplomatic signals rather than achieving kinetic results.

The composition of the attack was similar to how the Russians conduct airstrikes on Ukraine, except it was larger. First a number of slow drones is sent in to keep the air defenses busy, and then the faster missiles tried to get through. However, the scale of the attack was about 2 to 3 times bigger than what Russia uses in a large airstrike against Ukraine. Much has been read into this fact, but I think it’s mostly just an expression of what attrition does to a military force. This was the first such air battle between Iran and Israel, and a couple of years into a war the numbers would have looked very differently. Iran would not have been able to launch 300 drones and missiles, and Israel would not have been able to shoot down that many.

As I write this, it is still unknown how Israel will react to the attack, and if there will be some kind of retaliation. But the attack has highlighted one important question: why is it that Israel seemingly gets much more help from Western countries than Ukraine does? Several Ukrainian officials – including president Zelensky – raised that question after the Iranian attack, where the United States, United Kingdom, and France actively assisted Israel in shooting down the incoming drones and missiles.

From a Ukrainian point of view it is frustrating to watch how Western countries are so enthusiastic about protecting Israel that they commit their own forces to the task, while the same countries hesitate to deliver desperately needed air defense equipment to Ukraine. And indeed it is difficult to see the logic, so it is a question that has been debated quite a bit. Several explanations have been offered, and I thought it would be interesting to list some of them below to qualify further discussions.

The list is not exhaustive, it’s just the most prevalent explanations that I have seen or can think of. Please add more explanations in the comments if I have overlooked something. A personal pet peeve of mine is also that when things like this happen, then there is very rarely only one explanation. The real reason is probably a combination of several explanations.

1. The West is trying to prevent a larger war from breaking out in the Middle East
The argument here is that it’s better to prevent a war if possible, and that the West is trying to prevent unnecessary escalation. Personally I feel that this argument can easily be overdone. It is definitely possible to see how tensions can increase between Israel and Iran, but I think it’s important to remember that these two countries don’t actually share a border. They are separated by several other countries that have no interest in becoming part of a war, and that will put a natural damper on things.

2. Historical ties between U.S. and Israel
The United States been a strong supporter of Israel for generations, and there is a strong pro-Israel community in the US. The same is not true for Ukraine, which until 1991 was (technically speaking) the enemy. Such historical traditions don’t change easily. Europe does not have quite the same tradition of supporting Israel, but they are supporting because the US does… that is Europe’s tradition.

3. Russia has better information war capabilities than Iran
Russia has been very good at fighting the information war, at least if we exclude the first couple of months of the war. There are many people in the West – including members of the U.S. Congress – who routinely parrot Kremlin talking points, and their troll farms play a significant role on social media. Russia has been able to leverage that power to persuade Western policymakers not to support Ukraine or to limit the amount of support. Iran does not have the same “soft power”. While there are many people in the West who support the Palestinian cause against Israel, it is difficult to find people who support the Iranian cause.

4. It’s about nuclear weapons
This is one of the more scary explanations, not least because it is persuasive. The argument is that the United States is doing everything they can to avoid nuclear escalation, and that this goal trumps all other priorities. Israel has nuclear weapons, so the United States is determined to prevent situations where Israel might feel the need to escalate. That is why the American support for Israel seems almost unconditional. But in the war in Ukraine it is a Russia that has the nuclear weapons. This means that the American number one priority in Ukraine has been to avoid Russian escalation. That is the reason why the American government has been so reluctant to provide long-range hard-hitting capabilities to Ukraine, and why American assistance has generally arrived late and with caveats.

The nuclear explanation is scary because it gives all states an incentive to pursue nuclear weapons. The lesson is that if you want American support, you need to have your own nuclear weapons. That way the Americans will be afraid that you might escalate, so they will do everything they can to help you.

One of the questions I get a lot is what I think would have happened if Ukraine had still had nuclear weapons. Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons in 1994 after receiving security guarantees as part of the Budapest memorandum. My answer is that I don’t think it would have prevented Russia from starting the war, and I also don’t think Ukraine would have used nuclear weapons at this point in the war, so in that sense it would not have made a difference. But I do think it would have made a difference for the American support to Ukraine. If Ukraine had had nuclear weapons, we would have seen a much faster and much stronger response to ensure that Ukraine would be able to achieve its goals with conventional means.

A word of caution for Europe
While there are several possible explanations for why the Western support for Israel seems stronger than for Ukraine (please add more explanations in the comments), it’s important that the European countries understand which war that is most important for their own security. Since Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel, the conflict in Gaza has overshadowed the war in Ukraine in the Western media to an extent that is unhealthy.

The war in Gaza is terrible, the humanitarian consequences are enormous, and Western countries have a moral obligation to intervene. But the war in Ukraine is shaping the future of European security and can potentially develop into a war that is taking place on the territory of Western European countries. It is important that European countries learn to think strategically about security and power politics, and that they don’t end up more engaged in a conflict in the Middle East than they are about the war in Ukraine.