Washington and Jerusalem are preparing to sit down for talks on the next 10-year military aid agreement, and the timing matters. Last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth released the 2026 National Defense Strategy, which clearly reflects President Trump’s national security outlook and treats Israel not as a dependent ally, but as a serious strategic partner.
The strategy openly describes Israel as a “model ally,” noting that it has consistently shown both the capability and the will to defend itself with targeted, limited support from the United States. That distinction is important. Israel is not asking America to fight its wars. It is doing the fighting itself, while advancing shared U.S. interests in a volatile region. The document builds directly on President Trump’s efforts to strengthen regional cooperation, especially through the Abraham Accords, rather than relying on endless American intervention.
This framework is now shaping the debate over the next Memorandum of Understanding governing U.S. military assistance to Israel. Some voices, mostly on the left, continue to argue that the alliance is a liability or a financial drain. The strategy pushes back on that idea by pointing out that Israel is an operational force that actively supports U.S. objectives, not a passive recipient of aid.
The October 7 attacks and Israel’s response reinforced that point. Israel acted decisively to defend itself, proving that empowering capable allies works better than micromanaging them. That approach aligns with conservative principles: strength deters conflict, and partners who pull their own weight reduce the burden on American forces.
Jonathan Ruhe of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America highlighted another often-ignored reality. U.S. defense assistance to Israel doesn’t vanish overseas. The funding is largely spent in the United States, supporting American defense manufacturers, jobs, and technological development. In other words, the aid strengthens both Israel’s security and America’s industrial base.
Looking ahead, Ruhe suggested that the next MOU may go beyond simple funding. Joint research, co-production, intelligence sharing, and collaborative development could become central features, reflecting a more balanced partnership rather than a one-sided aid relationship. That shift makes sense in a changing security environment where innovation and speed matter as much as raw spending.
The strategy also stresses rebuilding America’s defense industrial base. When allies buy U.S. systems, it boosts domestic production and allows partners to take greater responsibility for their own security. That is exactly the kind of burden-sharing Republicans have long argued for.
Avner Golov of the Israeli think tank Mind Israel reinforced this point, arguing that Israel is not looking for handouts. Israel fights its own wars and simply needs reliable access to the tools required to do so. By defending itself, Israel strengthens U.S. influence in the Middle East and contributes directly to the American economy.
All of this comes as negotiations begin over the next MOU. The current agreement, signed in 2016, provides $3.3 billion annually in military financing plus $500 million per year for missile defense. Those numbers have become controversial following tensions during the Biden administration, particularly when the White House paused certain weapons shipments in 2024. That pause raised serious concerns in Israel about readiness and deterrence, and it exposed the risks of political interference in security cooperation.
While the U.S. has never approved every Israeli weapons request, the fact remains that about 70% of Israel’s military imports come from the United States. That reality has pushed Israeli leaders to consider greater domestic production, though Golov warned against turning that effort into a symbolic gesture at the expense of real preparedness. Deterrence only works if adversaries believe Israel is fully ready for the next conflict.
Both Golov and Ruhe pointed out that the past two years of war revealed vulnerabilities in supply chains and decision-making delays. Overdependence on any single source, especially when politics get involved, can undermine readiness. At the same time, Israel remains heavily reliant on the U.S. for major platforms like the F-15 and F-35, making a stable, predictable funding framework essential.
From a practical standpoint, approving a long-term MOU is also easier for Congress. Predictable funding avoids yearly political fights and sends a clear signal of continuity to allies and adversaries alike.
The broader vision emerging from this debate is not about distancing Israel from the United States, but about deepening the relationship. Golov described it as a move away from a 20th-century aid model toward a true strategic merger. Israel contributes advanced technology, battlefield experience, and regional leverage, delivering significant returns without risking American troops.
That vision rests on three pillars: a shared defense industrial base, joint technological development, and a regional network linking Israeli innovation, Gulf infrastructure, and American power. Maintaining U.S. security assistance during the transition is critical, especially given the uncertainty of future administrations.
A sudden reduction or cutoff in aid would be read by America’s enemies as weakness and retreat. It would also risk undermining Israel’s preparedness at a dangerous moment. A final 10-year “bridge” under the current MOU framework provides stability, deterrence, and clarity.
In the end, this isn’t about charity or ideology. It’s about hard-nosed national interest. A strong Israel, capable of defending itself, aligned with American values and backed by American industry, remains one of the smartest security investments the United States can make.
Comments
Post a Comment