International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES[1]) from Ljubljana, Slovenia, regularly analyses developments in the Middle East, Balkans and around the world. Dr. Masahiro Matsumura, Professor of International Politics and National Security, Faculty of Law, St. Andrew's University (Momoyama Gakuin Daigaku) and member of IFIMES Council, prepared an analysis entitled “Jewish Intelligence Power as a Critical Intervening Factor in Hegemonic Transference”. In the analysis Dr. Matsumura explores the historical and contemporary roles of Jewish intelligence in facilitating hegemonic transference, paying particular attention to the state of Israel as a geopolitical and intelligence hub. The analysis also connects these historical continuities to recent international crises, notably the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, which reveal the deepening shift from Anglo-American globalism to Judeo-American nationalism. The article is published in its entirety.
Behind the accelerating decline of U.S. hegemony lays a severe division within American elites and society at large, epitomized by the clash between President Donald Trump’s nationalist insurgent forces and the globalist establishment that had held predominant power for decades until recently. Since the end of World War II, and more conspicuously after the end of the Cold War, the globalists had advanced the U.S.-led international security, economic, and political systems—including the United Nations, the Bretton Woods institutions, and, in sum, the liberal international order. Yet these globalists have steadily lost political ground. They have been displaced from the presidency and Congress, though they retain residual influence in the federal judiciary, bureaucracies, and state-level administrations. By contrast, many European governments, notably in the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, remain largely committed to globalist orientations, frequently clashing with Trump’s anti-globalist approach.
The central question of this study is why the Trumpian “nationalist revolution” appears so difficult to reverse in the broader dynamics of American hegemonic decline. To answer this, the analysis situates the United States’ predicament within the long arc of hegemonic transference—from the former British hegemon to the American successor—and the ongoing weakening of Anglo-American globalists who historically formed the core of the liberal order. Equally important, the analysis considers the domestic and transatlantic political realignments that originally enabled British imperial ascendancy and later underpinned U.S. global leadership.
This article introduces a critical yet often overlooked variable into the discussion of hegemonic cycles: Jewish intelligence power. From early modern Europe through the British Empire to the U.S. hegemonic system and then to the contemporary U.S.–Israel alliance under the accelerating U.S. hegemonic decline, Jewish intelligence networks—financial, epistemic, and clandestine—have been indispensable in sustaining, reinforcing, and reorienting hegemonic projects. Their influence has extended far beyond mere state capacity, shaping the knowledge systems, financial infrastructures, and propaganda mechanisms of successive great powers. The present inquiry thus traces the historical and contemporary roles of Jewish intelligence in facilitating hegemonic transference, paying particular attention to the state of Israel as a geopolitical and intelligence hub. The analysis also connects these historical continuities to recent international crises, notably the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, which reveal the deepening shift from Anglo-American globalism to Judeo-American nationalism.
Britain’s ascent to global hegemony was neither inevitable nor solely the result of naval superiority or industrial capacity. In early modern Europe, England was a relatively minor offshore kingdom, politically fractured and economically peripheral. Its rise as the first constitutional monarchy, consolidated after the English Civil Wars of the seventeenth century, forged the basic political foundation and apparatus essential for hegemonic expansion later. Yet political institutions alone could not guarantee external predominance. A parallel development was necessary: the creation of effective foreign intelligence and financial networks.
Early modern Britain lacked deep traditions of state-centered intelligence gathering and analysis. Instead, it came to rely heavily on the semi-autonomous commercial-financial networks of the City of London Corporation, whose reach extended across Europe and, later, the colonies. Within this ecosystem, Jewish Diaspora communities—already embedded in transcontinental trade and finance—played a crucial role in gathering and disseminating intelligence. Their cosmopolitan and often deracinated position, coupled with a need to safeguard movable assets, created incentives for cultivating highly resilient cross-border information networks.
The composition of these networks was shaped by historical shifts in Diaspora settlement. The expulsion of Jews from Iberia in the late fifteenth century dispersed Sephardic communities across the Ottoman Empire, North Africa, and Western Europe. Many settled in the Habsburg Netherlands, where they became indispensable financiers of Dutch commercial primacy in the seventeenth century.[2] Following the Netherlands’ decline, a significant portion relocated to London, aligning themselves with Britain’s emerging financial and naval power. Others migrated to New Amsterdam (later New York), further extending the Anglo-Dutch-Jewish commercial triangle.[3]
By the nineteenth century, Britain’s hegemony rested on the dual foundations of parliamentary-military power and Jewish intelligence-financial networks. The Bank of England and the City of London provided mechanisms for projecting financial leverage abroad, with Jewish financiers often at the center. Nathan Mayer Rothschild famously orchestrated massive loans to fund Britain’s war effort against Napoleonic France[4], arguably determining the outcome of the continental struggle. Beyond finance, Jewish merchants and agents facilitated information flows that enabled Britain to exploit vulnerabilities in rival states. Thus, Britain’s hegemonic ascent exemplified the symbiotic marriage of state power and Diaspora intelligence.
The transatlantic hegemonic transition accelerated in the early twentieth century as U.S. industrial and financial power outstripped Britain’s. By the end of World War I, the United States had already displaced Britain as the world’s largest creditor. World War II further consolidated this shift, with Washington emerging as the unrivaled military and economic hegemon. Britain, devastated by war, was forced to accept junior-partner status in what came to be termed the “special relationship.”
This relationship was not merely military or diplomatic but intellectual and epistemic. British elites sought to perpetuate their influence by embedding themselves in American institutions. London-based financial capital took stakes in the newly established Federal Reserve Bank of New York (1913). Simultaneously, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House, 1920) and the Council on Foreign Relations (1921) cultivated a transatlantic epistemic community.[5]These institutional linkages facilitated the diffusion of liberal internationalist values and policy paradigms, forming the ideological backbone of what later became the U.S.-led liberal order.
Through these networks, British leaders exercised disproportionate influence over their American counterparts. With greater experience in imperial governance, they often shaped U.S. strategic thinking from within, ensuring continuity in hegemonic practices even as material primacy shifted across the Atlantic. The Anglo-American globalist coalition—spanning finance, academia, media, and intelligence—thus became the guardian of liberal hegemony.
Yet this arrangement also entailed asymmetry. Britain, increasingly reliant on U.S. military protection, leveraged its remaining assets—intelligence networks, overseas bases, and Commonwealth ties—to retain relevance. The Five Eyes alliance institutionalized intelligence-sharing among the Anglophone powers, with Britain acting as both parasite and symbiont within the larger U.S.-dominated system. The durability of Anglo-American globalism rested in no small part on the integration of Jewish internationalist networks that aligned with London’s globalist vision.
To sustain hegemony, imperial Britain needed Jewish intelligence but also feared the rise of Jewish nationalism, which threatened to redirect Diaspora loyalties away from globalist alignments.[6] The solution was a divide-and-rule strategy. Nowhere was this clearer than in Mandatory Palestine, where Britain issued contradictory commitments: the 1917 Balfour Declaration endorsing a Jewish homeland, and the 1915 Hussein-McMahon correspondence promising Arabs an independent state.
By maintaining ambiguity, London ensured that both Jewish and Arab aspirations remained dependent on British mediation. After Israel’s independence in 1948, Britain recognized the new state but simultaneously criticized its military occupations beyond the 1947 UN partition plan (Resolution 181). This allowed London to claim moral authority while still cultivating Jewish internationalists who opposed Zionist nationalism.
Israeli intelligence, meanwhile, bore the imprint of British tutelage.[7] The Labor Party’s dominance until the 1980s ensured that Israel’s security establishment leaned toward globalist orientations. Many Israeli intelligence leaders maintained personal and institutional ties with their British counterparts, a legacy of Mandatory Palestine. As a result, Jewish intelligence power remained partially constrained within the Anglo-American globalist framework, preventing it from becoming a wholly nationalist project.
The late twentieth century witnessed a gradual but profound realignment. While the U.S.–U.K. special relationship remained intact, the growing influence of Jewish neoconservatives within Washington shifted the axis toward a U.S.–Israel partnership. The 1992 “Wolfowitz Doctrine,” drafted by then–Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, articulated a vision of unchallenged U.S. primacy and preemptive interventionism—ideas resonant with Israeli security concerns.[8]
The global war on terrorism after 2001 intensified this convergence. Israel benefited enormously from U.S. military and intelligence support, achieving regional supremacy without bearing proportional costs. Meanwhile, pro-Israel lobbies in Washington shaped Middle East policy, reinforcing a U.S.–Israel axis that increasingly eclipsed British influence.[9]
The Iraq War (2003–2011) epitomized the divergence. While Britain joined the U.S. invasion, it failed to restrain Washington’s unilateralism. Israel, by contrast, deepened intelligence and indirect operational cooperation with the United States, gaining leverage in regional security planning. As America’s Middle Eastern commitments faltered amid insurgency and withdrawal, Israel emerged as an indispensable partner. The balance of intelligence influence within the hegemonic system shifted from London to Jerusalem.
This transformation generated latent conflict between British and Israeli intelligence communities, both competing for privileged access to Washington. Britain relied on its traditional assets—global networks and moral rhetoric—while Israel leveraged proximity to U.S. policymakers and unrivaled regional expertise. Over time, Israel’s position proved stronger, especially as Jewish nationalism within the Diaspora aligned with Judeo-American nationalism in U.S. domestic politics.
The Trump revolution crystallized these trends. Domestically, Trumpian nationalists challenged Anglo-American globalists across multiple fronts, from trade policy to intelligence priorities. Externally, Trump’s approach to the Middle East favored Israeli interests, reinforcing the Judeo-American nationalist bloc.
Since Trump’s 2024 reelection and his inauguration in 2025, the gravitational center of U.S. intelligence cooperation has shifted further toward Israel. Information leaks and media narratives about the Ukraine war increasingly undermined Anglo-American propaganda efforts, revealing the weakening ability of Britain to control discourse. Instead, Judeo-American nationalist networks shaped public narratives, portraying Ukraine as a costly quagmire rather than a moral crusade.[10]
At the same time, Israel pursued aggressive military campaigns against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, often at great humanitarian cost. Trump’s administration, while avoiding overt endorsement, quietly facilitated Israeli operations through intelligence support, including targeted assassinations of Hezbollah and Iranian commanders. Such tacit backing enhanced Israel’s regional dominance, even as it eroded its international legitimacy. Britain, attempting to counterbalance, recognized Palestinian statehood—a symbolic gesture that undercut Israel’s legal-political standing but failed to alter strategic realities.
The broader dynamic reveals the disintegration of Anglo-American globalism and the ascendancy of Judeo-American nationalism. Jewish intelligence power, once aligned with London-centered Jewish internationalism as a form of globalism, increasingly serves Jewish nationalist ends rooted in the U.S.-Israel axis. This shift reflects both structural decline in U.S. hegemony and the reconfiguration of transnational epistemic communities.
This study has argued that Jewish intelligence power has long served as a decisive intervening factor in hegemonic transference. From the financial-intelligence networks of early modern Diaspora communities that enabled Britain’s rise, to the formation of the Anglo-American globalist establishment, and then to the epistemic and lobbying structures that cemented U.S.–Israel ties, Jewish intelligence has consistently shaped hegemonic trajectories.
The historical arc reveals three phases. First, Britain’s imperial ascent depended on integrating Jewish intelligence into its global strategy. Second, transatlantic hegemonic transfer institutionalized Anglo-American globalism, with Jewish internationalists reinforcing liberal order. Third, the contemporary era marks the nationalist turn, as Judeo-American networks reorient Jewish intelligence toward securing Israel’s regional primacy and reshaping U.S. foreign policy. This also involves a decisive decline of Britain’s residual influence in international affairs that is disproportionate to its waning material power long after its past hegemony.
The implications are far-reaching. The decline of U.S. hegemony cannot be explained solely by material overstretch or domestic polarization. It also reflects the erosion of Anglo-American epistemic dominance and the rise of alternative nationalist communities that wield intelligence as a political weapon. Whether Israel consolidates itself as a stabilizing regional hegemon or remains trapped in cycles of militarist overreach remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the struggle between Jewish internationalists and Jewish nationalists will continue to shape the architecture of world politics in the emerging multipolar order.
In the long run, a “Greater Israel,” if realized, may paradoxically stabilize the region by satiating Zionist ambitions, thereby reducing incentives for perpetual militarism. In that scenario, Jewish intelligence power would shift from expansionist nationalism to regional custodianship, adapting once again to the evolving requirements of global order.
About the author:
Prof. Dr. Masahiro Matsumura is Professor of International Politics and National Security at St. Andrew’s University in Osaka, and currently a 2024 ROC-MOFA Taiwan Fellow-in-Residence at NCCU-IIR Taiwan Centre for Security Studies in Taipei. He is Member of IFIMES Council.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect IFIMES official position.
Ljubljana/Osaka, 3 October 2025
[1] IFIMES – International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies, based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, has Special Consultative status at ECOSOC/UN since 2018. and it’s publisher of the international scientific journal “European Perspectives”.
[2] Jonathan Israel, Dutch Primacy in World Trade, 1585–1740, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.
[3] Stephen Birmingham, The Grandees: America’s Sephardic Elite, Syracuse University Press, 1997.
[4] Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, New York: Penguin, 2008, Chapter 2.
[5] Masahiro Matsumura, “Why Truce Talks Now? The Significance of the Trump Revolution.” IFIMES Analysis, March 28, 2025. https://www.ifimes.org/en/researches/why-truce-talks-now-the-significance-of-the-trump-revolution/5480.
[6] Masahiro Matsumura, “The War in Ukraine as an Inevitable Manifestation of Globalism vs. Nationalism,” IFIMES Analysis, August 6, 2024. https://www.ifimes.org/en/researches/the-war-in-ukraine-as-an-inevitable-manifestation-of-globalism-vs-nationalism/5377.
[7] Michael J. Cohen, Britain’s Moment in Palestine: Retrospect and Perspectives, 1917–1948, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014.
[8] National Security Council of the United States. “Defense Planning Guidance, FY 94–99.” April 16, 1992. https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/iscap/pdf/2008-003-docs1-12.pdf.
[9] John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, New York: Penguin, 2008.
[10] Masahiro Matsumura, “Hindered: A Frozen Conflict in Ukraine,” IFIMES Analysis, June 26, 2023. https://www.ifimes.org/en/researches/hindered-a-frozen-conflict-in-ukraine/5188; Masahiro Matsumura, “Unmasking War Propaganda against Russian Aggression: An Investigative Approach,” IFIMES Analysis, April 20, 2022. https://www.ifimes.org/en/researches/unmasking-war-propaganda-against-russian-aggression-an-investigative-approach/5039.
