Israel does not need America. (It’s actually the other way around.)

Decades of American aid mask the truth: Israel’s strength, strategy, and regional influence make it the indispensable ally — not the dependent one.

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.

---

For decades, debate has swirled around Israel’s dependence on the United States. The assumption is often framed as a given: Israel would not survive without American support.

But this framing misunderstands both Israel’s strategic maturity and the realities of modern Middle Eastern power dynamics. Israel is not a geopolitical ward of the United States; it is a sovereign democracy with a hardened defense doctrine, deep regional relationships, and a clear-eyed understanding of its own red lines. It does not require American substitution to address existential threats — only partnership when both parties’ interests are served.

This is not an argument against the U.S.–Israel alliance. That relationship remains vital, anchored in intelligence cooperation, diplomatic backing, technological collaboration, and shared democratic values. But there is a crucial distinction between support and substitution. Both Israel and the United States benefit enormously from partnership, yet Israel does not outsource existential decisions to Washington. An ally strengthens Israel’s hand; it does not hold it. To frame Israel as dependent is to collapse its agency into a fiction of dependency and mistake alliance for guardianship.

In numbers, the United States provides Israel with approximately $3.8 billion per year in military aid through at least 2028 under the current Memorandum of Understanding, including $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing and roughly $500 million earmarked for missile defense systems such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow.

While frequently portrayed as a lifeline, this represents only about 11 percent of Israel’s total defense budget, which hovers around $34–to–35 billion annually. In other words, American aid is substantial in absolute dollars but far from determinative. The overwhelming majority of Israel’s defense capabilities — its air force, intelligence operations, missile programs, special forces, and domestic R&D — are funded through its own budget and guided by its strategic priorities. U.S. aid is a supportive amplifier, not a substitute, reinforcing the fact that Israel is fully capable of managing its own security independently.

Israel’s independence is not only financial but operational. In the Middle East, Israel has long cultivated relationships with regional partners, sometimes covertly and increasingly openly, to address shared security challenges. Decades before the Abraham Accords, Israel maintained clandestine cooperation with countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, exchanging intelligence on threats posed by hostile actors and extremist networks.

Even Iran, prior to its 1970s Islamic revolution, was a strategic partner, sharing concerns about radical movements and maintaining military and economic ties that advanced mutual interests. In more recent years, Israel has engaged openly with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Jordan on intelligence sharing, counterterrorism, and cyber defense initiatives, reflecting a pragmatic recognition that regional stability depends on working collaboratively with neighbors whenever interests align. These relationships demonstrate that Israel is not isolated and that its ability to act independently does not preclude meaningful partnerships with regional counterparts.

Alliances, of course, are transactional. During the Israel–Gaza war, the United Arab Emirates remained notably quiet. To some, this silence seemed morally ambiguous, even damning. But politics rewards positioning, not virtue signaling. Recent claims attributed to a senior Arab royal suggest that Israel and the UAE are quietly working to reshape Gulf power dynamics, potentially at Saudi Arabia’s expense:

“There are no rules anymore; there are no consequences anymore. Gulf unity is a myth, and all those carefully manicured media images you see of crown princes and emirs standing together in harmony is a load of rubbish. Behind the scenes there is bitter rivalry and lots of back-stabbing.”

“After the United Arab Emirates signed the Abraham Accords with Bahrain in 2020, Kuwait began to move its allegiance from Saudi to Abu Dhabi. The Saudis have been too slow to support Israel and sign the Abraham Accords, so the Israelis are now keen to change the power dynamics in the Middle East.”

Additionally, the Emiratis were reportedly the undisclosed customer for a $2.3-billion arms deal with Israel’s Elbit Systems. Whether every detail is accurate is almost beside the point. The broader pattern is unmistakable: in the Middle East, there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, only temporary alignments of interest. States cooperate, compete, and undermine one another simultaneously. Today’s silence becomes tomorrow’s pact; today’s outrage becomes tomorrow’s contract.

Israel’s capacity to act independently is further demonstrated by its operations inside Iran. Using a combination of covert, cyber, and precision operations, Israel has repeatedly degraded Iranian nuclear capabilities without triggering full-scale war. The Stuxnet cyberattack in the 2000s, widely attributed to Israeli intelligence, infiltrated Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility and physically damaged roughly a thousand centrifuges, significantly slowing Iran’s enrichment program without traditional military engagement.

Over the following decade, Israel carried out targeted operations against Iranian nuclear scientists and key personnel, striking at critical elements of Iran’s weapons programs while avoiding broader escalation. Physical sabotage of Iranian nuclear sites also occurred, including mysterious explosions at Natanz and other facilities in 2019 and 2020, causing infrastructure setbacks without provoking war. These examples illustrate that Israel’s strength and strategic reach long predate — and often operate independently of — American involvement.

To understand Israel’s independence, it helps to look back at the origins of the U.S.–Israel relationship. Americans often point to President Harry Truman’s early recognition of the State of Israel in 1948. Yet the next 20 years were turbulent.

During the 1950s, U.S. policy prioritized supporting Arab states’ independence, halting Soviet influence in the region, and stabilizing oil economies, resulting in a near arms embargo on Israel. France remained Israel’s primary military supporter until the run-up to the Six-Day War, when President Charles de Gaulle imposed an embargo in anticipation of a Soviet-backed Arab victory. Israel’s victory in 1967 proved decisive: “Israel did not grow strong because it had an American alliance. It acquired an American alliance because it had grown strong,” according to American foreign policy professor Walter Russell Mead.

Even after formal U.S. arms sales began, aid came with political strings. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel’s survival depended on a last-minute resupply of U.S.-made weapons. In 1975, Washington suspended arms sales to pressure Israel into signing new accords with Egypt. Formal military aid, distinct from loans or cash-on-delivery sales, began in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, following Israel’s agreement to withdraw from Sinai. While this aid strengthened Israel’s capabilities, it reinforced asymmetry, giving the U.S. leverage over strategic decisions.

Today, the costs of U.S. aid are increasingly apparent. Under the latest Memorandum of Understanding, all aid must be spent within the United States, eliminating provisions that allowed Israel to invest roughly a quarter in domestic defense products. Israel’s Defense Ministry estimated this would cost $1.3 billion annually and endanger approximately 22,000 jobs. Retired IDF Major General Gershon Hacohen has warned that reliance on advanced American platforms has stifled operational creativity, leaving Israel less adaptable. Systemic procurement issues in the U.S. compound the problem.

U.S. aid has never been a charitable act. Nearly all of it flows directly to American weapons manufacturers, providing leverage over Israel and undermining domestic defense industries. While these dynamics may benefit U.S. interests, they make Israeli security increasingly conditional. Inconsistencies in U.S. policy, particularly regarding Iran, highlight why Israel cannot depend entirely on American support. The Obama administration’s nuclear deal, which provided Israel historic aid while signaling tolerance for a regime openly committed to its destruction, exemplifies this misalignment.

American foreign policy is often constrained by domestic politics and an incomplete understanding of the Middle East. Efforts to impose solutions like the two-state model or revive the Palestinian Authority in Gaza illustrate how well-intentioned policies can amplify dysfunction rather than resolve it. Israel cannot allow its security to hinge on distant leaders with competing priorities; it must act decisively and pragmatically based on its own strategic calculus.

Ultimately, Israel’s strength lies in autonomy, regional engagement, and operational expertise. U.S. support is valuable, but it is not a lifeline. Presenting Israel as America’s “best friend” simplifies this reality. Much of U.S. foreign aid exists to sustain a profit-driven arms industry and provide Washington political leverage. Israeli leaders have long understood this asymmetry but treat it as useful theater, using American resources strategically while maintaining operational independence.

In an era of shifting alliances, regional rivalries, and global uncertainty, Israel’s capacity to act independently is more crucial than ever. It can choose when, how, and where to engage, leveraging U.S. partnership without surrendering sovereignty. That autonomy — rooted in decades of experience, innovation, and pragmatism — is the true foundation of Israel’s security and its enduring strength in the Middle East.

---