On October 23, local time, U.S. Vice President Watson was suddenly angry before leaving Israel in front of media screens.
“Extremely stupid politics” – this US vice-president uses such rare, fierce words to evaluate the bill that the Israeli parliament has just passed.
Even thought he was insulted for it.
The core of this diplomatic turmoil is the bill passed by the Israeli Knesset on October 22nd, that is, during Vance's visit to Israel, which involves the annexation of the West Bank.
This move occurred shortly after U.S. President Trump pushed for the signing of a peace agreement to end the Gaza conflict, and undoubtedly dropped a shock bomb on the fragile Palestinian-Israeli peace process.
Obviously, this was a public slap in the face and a disgrace to Trump. Before Vance left, he even put down a harsh sentence that "they will never be happy."
Of course, Wance’s anger, which appears to be a reaction to the Israeli parliament’s dissatisfaction with the annexation of the West Bank bill, essentially exposes the deep misery of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
This is not an anger about justice and morality, but a battle of power and obedience.
Vance's angry response, seemingly impulsive, may actually be a carefully calculated "angry performance".
During his speech at the airport, Vance's attitude changed from confusion to anger. "Yes, it's weird, it's really weird. I'm a little confused."
He said this at first, but then the tone gradually became sharp. This emotional evolution reveals strategies that range from diplomatic rhetoric to personal emotions.
Wans’ anger was not an isolated action.
U.S. Secretary of State Rubio issued a warning at almost the same time, saying that it was impossible for the United States to support Israel in doing so now, believing that such annexation would only threaten the peace agreement.
This tacit combination shows that American anger is more like a coordinated performance aimed at delivering specific messages to multiple audiences.
To the American public, the show demonstrates the Trump administration’s “hard” side of Israel.
Vance and Rubio's tough stance is intended to respond to domestic criticism of their excessive bias towards Israel and present the image of "fair mediators."
To our Arab allies, the strong response of the United States is a necessary reassurance.
After all, Israel's plan will be strongly opposed and denounced by Arab countries no matter what. If the United States does not show its attitude, what will the Arab countries think of the United States?
For the United States, a clear response to this provocation must be given to safeguard its credibility as a mediator in the Middle East.
The most critical is the warning to Israel.
Vance made it clear that the U.S. government's policy is that the West Bank will not be annexed by Israel." This tough statement drew a clear red line for the United States.
Meanwhile, the wave reveals the transaction nature of the Trump administration’s Middle East policy.
On October 13, Trump also called the ceasefire agreement a “great victory for Israel and the world.”
Less than two weeks later, his vice president issued a severe warning at the Israeli airport.This shift highlighted the opportunistic nature of U.S. Middle East policy.
A noteworthy detail is that during Wans’ visit he also discussed with Netanyahu the issue of “affiliated states.” Netanyahu then vowed that “they are a partner alliance.”
However, at the same time as he said this, the Israeli parliament demonstrated the vulnerability of this “partnership” with action.
The most ironic part of this diplomatic tragedy is that the parties are playing a double game.
The Israeli opposition is apparently pushing the ideological agenda and essentially engaging in domestic political struggle; Netanyahu is apparently condemning “political provocation” but does not have to really stop it.
The U.S. appears to be defending the peace process, essentially defending its own diplomatic dominance.
U.S. anger is essentially a kind of "paternalistic" anger-not opposition to allies 'actions per se, but anger at allies' disobedience.
Looking back at this diplomatic wave, Wance’s anger was more like a disclosure of the decline in American leadership.
As its closest allies begin to publicly test the United States 'bottom line, the United States' dominance in the Middle East has revealed deep cracks.
The Israeli parliament’s “political shrinkage” may also begin to make it clear to Americans that Israel is not just everyone’s shrinkage, but America is actually becoming Israel’s shrinkage.