Most Americans don’t realize how much they need Israel.

The $3.8 billion America sends to Israel annually isn’t aid. It’s one of the highest-return strategic investments in modern history.

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.

---

This is a guest essay by Eric Daniel Buesing, a historian and writer.

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

---

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced recently that Israel would achieve full independence from American military aid, the response in Washington should have been something closer to panic — not because Israel desperately needs America’s $3.8 billion annual check, but because America needs what that investment buys far more than Israel needs the money.

Strip away the rhetoric about shared values and historical bonds, which matter but aren’t the point here, and you’re left with a cold strategic reality: American power throughout the Middle East depends almost entirely on having one absolutely reliable partner in a region where literally everyone else is either actively hostile to the United States or so unstable they might collapse and flip sides at any moment.

Pull up a map and look at it honestly. From Morocco’s Atlantic coast all the way to Afghanistan’s Pakistani border, from Turkey down through Yemen, you’re looking at roughly 400 million people spread across dozens of countries, and exactly one of them operates as a genuine democracy where American interests align with the government’s interests.

Saudi Arabia remains an absolute monarchy despite whatever modernizing PR its kingdom puts out. Egypt careens between military strongmen and the perpetual edge of chaos. Jordan’s government survives but barely, always one crisis away from serious instability. Syria’s not really a country anymore, just rubble and competing militias. Iraq exists as a barely disguised Iranian satellite state that we pretend is sovereign because admitting otherwise would mean confronting some uncomfortable truths about how that two-decade adventure turned out.

Lebanon answers to Hezbollah, regardless of what its official government pretends. The Gulf monarchies don’t even bother pretending they’re anything other than hereditary autocracies. Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan slides further toward authoritarianism every year. Iran actively works to build nuclear weapons while funding every proxy force in the region willing to take Tehran’s money and cause America and Israel problems.

So where exactly can American forces operate with any confidence that the host government won’t evaporate overnight or suddenly decide our interests don’t align with theirs anymore? That’s not a hypothetical question. We’ve watched it happen repeatedly. Iraq and Afghanistan cost the U.S. something north of $2 trillion, and both countries collapsed almost immediately after we reduced our presence. We built elaborate base infrastructure, trained armies, propped up governments, and it all melted away like we’d never been there.

Compare that track record with Israel, which costs America less than $4 billion annually and has never wavered, never played us against another power, and never harbored our enemies while accepting our aid. That’s not sentiment talking; it’s just arithmetic.

There’s a historical pattern here that Americans seem remarkably slow to learn. After World War II, the U.S. built alliance networks to contain Soviet expansion, anchoring our position in Europe through NATO, and in Asia through treaties with Japan and South Korea. Those weren’t charitable ventures or Marshall Plan romanticism. They were forward operating positions that let us project power into contested regions without maintaining massive permanent deployments or worrying constantly about political stability.

The Cold War ended without a single nuclear weapon fired at American territory largely because we had allies willing to absorb pressure, host our forces, and share intelligence. The Middle East works the same way, except the threat matrix is actually more complex now because you’re dealing with state actors like Iran and Russia, non-state actors like Hezbollah and Hamas, and great power competition with China all happening simultaneously in the same space.

Every time the U.S. has abandoned strategic positions, we’ve regretted it. South Vietnam’s fall in 1975 triggered dominoes across Southeast Asia that killed millions and destabilized the region for a generation. America’s premature Iraq withdrawal in 2011 created the vacuum ISIS filled, forcing us back in at vastly greater cost. Afghanistan’s 2021 collapse made Saigon look competent by comparison and left Al-Qaeda regrouping while China buys up mineral rights. These aren’t theoretical concerns about slippery slopes. They’re empirical observations about what actually happens when America creates power vacuums in strategically important regions. Other actors fill them, always and immediately.

You’ll hear people argue that the U.S. don’t need Middle Eastern oil anymore thanks to fracking, and they’re half right. America has achieved energy independence for domestic consumption. But that misses the point entirely because global oil markets remain interconnected and our European and Asian allies still depend heavily on Middle Eastern energy. If Beijing or Moscow dominates the region, they don’t need to cut America off; they just need to control supply to its allies, which gives them massive leverage over U.S. strategic interests everywhere else.

Twenty percent of global oil still flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and our ability to guarantee freedom of navigation there matters whether we personally buy that oil or not. Plus there’s the minor detail that terrorism still originates or gets funded there, nuclear proliferation still threatens from there, and you can’t exactly pivot away from the region when it keeps generating crises that affect American interests, whether we like it or not.

Obama tried reducing Middle Eastern engagement to focus on Asia, and remember what happened? ISIS carved out a caliphate the size of Britain. Russia moved permanently into Syria and established Mediterranean port access they’d been seeking for decades. Iran expanded through Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen almost unopposed. China brokered the Saudi-Iran rapprochement, a diplomatic achievement that should have been ours. Nature abhors vacuums, and so does geopolitics. Any space America creates gets filled by someone else, and that someone is never an actor whose interests align with those of the United States.

British imperial history offers useful lessons here if you’re willing to learn from other people’s mistakes. India’s 1947 partition killed a million people. Arab armies invaded the newly declared State of Israel the instant British forces withdrew in 1948.

The pattern holds remarkably consistent over time. Empty strategic space fills immediately with violence and competing powers. Throughout the Middle East today, that means China, Russia, and Iran, probably all three competing simultaneously. Whether America should maintain commitments in difficult regions is the wrong question. Whether it can afford to lose its only reliable commitment there is what matters.

Maintaining influence through temporary relationships doesn’t work, and we’ve got ample evidence. Britain dominated the Middle East after World War I through colonial possessions and puppet governments in Iraq, Jordan (then Transjordan), Egypt, and the Mandate territory that included the future State of Israel. France tried the identical approach in Syria and Lebanon with identical results. The Soviets poured resources into Egypt, Syria, and Iraq during the Cold War and lost everything when those governments decided Moscow wasn’t useful anymore.

The U.S. spent 20 years and several trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan without building anything that outlasted our presence. You need genuine partnerships with stable governments sharing your values and strategic interests, not client states or temporary arrangements of convenience.

Exactly one government qualifies. Through seven decades of regional wars, coups, revolutions, and upheavals, through multiple American administrations with wildly different foreign policy priorities, this single country has remained stable and aligned with Western strategic interests. There’s no parallel anywhere else in the region.

Turkey is in NATO, but Erdogan plays everyone against everyone else constantly. Saudi Arabia cooperates when it’s economically advantageous. Egypt requires constant financial life support to avoid collapse. Pakistan literally harbored Osama bin Laden in a compound down the street from their military academy while cashing U.S. aid checks. Every other relationship there is transactional at best.

What happens when you lose anchors like this? Britain withdrew east of Suez in the late 1960s and their Indian Ocean influence vanished essentially overnight. Soviet collapse cost Russia its Tartus naval base temporarily, and they spent decades clawing back any regional position, succeeding eventually by exploiting our Syria mistakes. Beijing studied both examples carefully and is now building influence methodically through its Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure, port acquisitions, and economic partnerships across the region. They want precisely what we have: reliable access to the world’s most strategically vital region. They’re also willing to be patient and systematic about getting it.

The geography matters more than most people realize. We’re talking about a country positioned at the intersection of three continents, where Suez Canal approaches are observable and power projection throughout the Eastern Mediterranean becomes possible.

American aircraft and ships get base access during crises, which proved crucial during the 1973 Yom Kippur War when U.S. military used these facilities for emergency resupply operations. During Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya, intelligence collection happened there, logistics support originated there, and operational coordination ran through there. You could spend tens of billions trying to replicate that infrastructure independently and still might not achieve the same capability regardless of cost.

Counterterrorism cooperation has become more important over time, not less. ISIS controlled territory across Iraq and Syria. Al-Qaeda affiliates operate throughout Yemen, Syria, and North Africa. Hezbollah runs southern Lebanon. Hamas governs Gaza. Iranian proxy militias operate in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain. These groups threaten American interests directly and continuously. Intelligence sharing and operational cooperation prevent attacks on American targets regularly. After 9/11, critical information about Al-Qaeda networks, financing, and operations came through this intelligence channel and helped prevent follow-up attacks. That cooperation continues against ISIS, Al-Qaeda variants, and Iranian-backed groups.

Nuclear proliferation should keep people awake at night because Tehran keeps pursuing weapons despite every agreement signed and sanction imposed. They’re actually closer to weapons capability now than when the nuclear agreement was signed, which should tell you something about how well the West’s diplomatic approach was working. If Iran goes nuclear, Saudi Arabia follows immediately. Turkey’s expressed interest publicly. Egypt might decide it needs weapons. A nuclear arms race across the Middle East would be catastrophic in ways people haven’t really thought through.

Only one regional power can prevent this through military action, and they’ve demonstrated both capability and will: Iraq’s reactor in 1981, Syria’s facility in 2007, and ongoing operations against Iranian nuclear program.

Technology competition with Beijing makes this partnership increasingly valuable. China leads in 5G networks, certain AI applications, and specific advanced manufacturing sectors. America maintains advantages in semiconductors, aerospace, and defense systems. Joint development programs contribute substantially to American technological leadership through work in cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, and quantum computing.

Intel didn’t acquire Mobileye for $15.3 billion as charity. Nvidia didn’t spend $7 billion on Mellanox out of generosity. They bought Israeli technology America needs to maintain advantages over China in critical domains. These aren’t small acquisitions or token partnerships. They’re strategic purchases of capabilities that keep the U.S. competitive.

Cyber warfare represents perhaps the most serious contemporary threat, and this is where advantages become extremely clear. The Council on Foreign Relations identifies cyberattacks among the gravest national security threats we face. This one country absorbs more cyberattacks per capita than anywhere on earth. Iranian hackers, Russian intelligence, Chinese espionage operations, non-state actors, everyone attacks constantly, and that relentless pressure produces defensive capabilities American companies and government agencies need desperately.

Israeli companies Check Point, Palo Alto Networks, CyberArk, and others protect critical American infrastructure. Even during active war in 2024, Israeli cybersecurity firms raised $4 billion, which demonstrates continued global confidence despite missiles falling regularly.

The Abraham Accords changed regional dynamics in ways people consistently underestimate. Arab governments normalized relations because they finally acknowledged shared threats and complementary capabilities. Iran threatens Sunni Arab states at least as much as Israel, probably more given sectarian dynamics. China’s expanding influence worries Gulf monarchies who remember Soviet domination. Terrorist groups destabilize everyone’s neighborhoods.

Arab governments suddenly wanted military technology, intelligence cooperation, and economic partnerships they’d rejected for decades. These accords created a coalition aligned with American interests against Iran, Russia, and China, but the coalition’s stability depends entirely on American support remaining credible and consistent. Weaken that support and watch the entire structure fracture.

Israel’s economics strengthen the case significantly. GDP exceeds $500 billion, making the Jewish state wealthier per capita than Japan, France, or Britain. The Israelis run trade surpluses consistently. Currency remains stable. Debt ratios look manageable compared to most Western nations. Over 100 Israeli companies trade on NASDAQ, actual technology companies producing genuine innovation rather than resource extraction or state-owned enterprises.

There are over 570 research and development centers in Israel owned by multinational companies, including Intel, Microsoft, Google, IBM, Cisco, Qualcomm, General Motors, and Amazon — producing technology American companies commercialize. That Mobileye acquisition brought autonomous vehicle technology keeping American automakers competitive with Chinese rivals. That Mellanox deal gave Nvidia data center technology essential for AI development.

What’s more, Israel’s military capabilities rank among the world’s most effective. They’ve won every major war fought, pioneered urban warfare tactics American forces studied and adopted, and developed intelligence capabilities few agencies anywhere can match. Mossad operations against Iranian nuclear scientists, weapons facilities, and terrorist leaders demonstrate capabilities that very few intelligence services possess. Shin Bet (Israel’s version of the FBI) prevents attacks with remarkable consistency. IDF Unit 8200 produces signals intelligence American agencies value extraordinarily high. During Iraq and Afghanistan, American special forces trained with their counterparts and adopted tactics developed through actual combat experience, not theoretical war games.

Defense cooperation produces tangible benefits. Arrow missile defense was jointly developed and both countries deploy it. Iron Dome came from Israel with American funding, and the U.S. Army now uses it. Trophy active protection from Rafael protects American tanks in combat. David’s Sling defends against medium-range threats. These systems work because actual combat tested them under real conditions, and battlefield data continuously improves American weapons systems. Defense analysts consistently value this testing at billions annually because it identifies fatal flaws and validates solutions before American lives face risk.

Diplomatic relationships extend in directions people don’t immediately recognize. Connections exist with countries refusing formal recognition for domestic political reasons. Operations run successfully in African nations where American influence barely reaches. Throughout Asia, particularly with India, which is the world’s most populous democracy and absolutely critical for containing China, technology and military cooperation strengthens Indian capabilities while serving American interests. When India needs weapons systems, American export laws prohibit selling, so they buy from Israel instead, which keeps India out of Russian military dependence without directly challenging America’s export control regime.

If Washington distances itself from Israel, several outcomes approach certainty. First, Israel survives and prospers independently because their economy, military, and educated population are strong enough. Second, new partners emerge immediately. Beijing provides markets, diplomatic cover, and technology cooperation eagerly. Moscow offers weapons systems alternatives. India expands existing military cooperation massively.

Third, American influence throughout the region collapses as Arab governments that normalized through Abraham Accords question American reliability while Tehran gains regional dominance and Beijing fills every vacuum we create. Fourth, American credibility globally suffers as allies everywhere from Japan to NATO question the U.S. commitment to partnerships and recalculate their strategic positions accordingly.

Netanyahu’s statement about achieving aid independence declares both strength and vulnerability simultaneously — strength because Israel can clearly afford complete independence given its diversified growing economy, highly capable military, genuinely world-class technology sector, but vulnerability for Washington because it reveals asymmetric dependency.

If American support becomes unreliable or conditional in ways compromising their security, independent development and alternative partnerships follow immediately. This relationship depends entirely on American credibility and consistency, and wavering even slightly could mean catastrophic consequences for American interests throughout the region and beyond.

The strategic reality is unambiguous. Israel is the last fortress of Western values and power in a region of 400 million people mostly hostile to everything the West represents, and it’s the only genuinely reliable partner where America can anchor influence, buffer against threats, test military technology under combat conditions, source irreplaceable intelligence, and access innovation in technologies we need. Israel is getting stronger demographically, while our adversaries and traditional European allies weaken.

Israel can afford independence; America cannot afford losing this alliance. The question isn’t whether Americans should support this partnership. The question is whether America can maintain its global position without it, and the answer is simply no.

---