> If you think people aren't obsessed with AIPAC you are not following US politics.

I think a simpler explanation might be just that there is a lot of attention being paid to why the US seems beholden to Israel to the extent that it would be willing to risk it's relationship with other allies that provide far more in return.

Exhibit A is the Iran war where the US essentially abandoned it's middle east and far east allies (to the extent to moving interceptors from Korea and Japan) to defend Israel. Other regional allies were largely left to fend for themselves.

Seeing all this, people are legitimately asking, what exactly does the US get in return for the enormous support, both direct and indirect that it provides to Israel. Given it's role, naturally AIPAC is going to be central to these conversations.

And specifically agreeing to a war, which every single president before has said "fuck no" because they understood the wider ramifications.

Fun fact: Not a single Kia vehicle sold in Finland has had a tow hook in it for 6 months - they're ALL stuck in Hormuz.