For decades, Washington traded security guarantees for Israeli restraint when the Jewish state was attacked by its various enemies, prioritizing “stability” in the region over strategic imperatives. After the Hamas-led terror attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, as Israel faced a multi-front war, those promises dissolved into arms delays, political interference and public rebuke from the United States while Israeli soldiers were fighting and dying in the field.
The Biden administration paused a shipment of 3,500 bombs, including bunker busters, in May 2024, crippling the Israel Defense Forces’ ability to target Hamas’s underground networks. In November, a shipment of 130 Caterpillar D9 bulldozers was suspended, limiting Israel’s ground maneuverability in urban combat zones. That same month, 20,000 MK-84 one-ton bombs were delayed, reducing Israel’s ability to strike hardened Hezbollah and Hamas targets. Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) kits were also withheld, undermining precision targeting, prolonging the war and increasing civilian casualties. Even essential military aid was tied to humanitarian convoys into Gaza, creating operational uncertainty and enabling Hamas to exploit the chaos through its black market.
Meanwhile, Israel’s Apache helicopter fleet, which is critical for counterterrorism efforts and deterring Hezbollah, was left in limbo. Approval for 15 new AH-64s was delayed for nearly a year, straining air operations and forcing overuse of aging aircraft.
Then came the political sabotage. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) took to the Senate floor to call for the removal from office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—an intervention Biden publicly welcomed. When the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, some in the Senate even attempted to impose sanctions on Israel.
None of this was a break from precedent. Rather, it was the continuation of a pattern. President Ronald Reagan suspended arms sales to Israel in 1981 after it bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor being built by Iraq. The United States forced Israel to abandon its Lavi fighter jet project to preserve American air dominance. President George H.W. Bush used loan guarantees to force Israel to participate in the Madrid peace talks, while Bill Clinton’s bear-hug diplomacy pressured Israel into the Oslo, Wye River and Camp David accords. President Barack Obama blocked the delivery of Hellfire missiles during Operation Cast Lead, signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), more commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, and tied all Israeli military aid to U.S. contractors, deepening Israel’s dependence on Washington.
Israeli leadership saw the pattern and ignored it. Worse, many embraced it. Why?
The easy answer is “free money” and the comfort of American guarantees. But that’s too simple. Nothing from Washington comes without a price, especially under President Donald Trump, who openly rejects the idea of one-sided alliances.
The deeper issue is a failure of political courage. Not battlefield courage, but the courage to prioritize national independence over the illusion of security through compliance. Central to Israeli strategic thought has long been the so-called “Ben-Gurion principle,” that no major military operation should be undertaken without the backing of a global power, despite Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion himself defying this formula when he declared statehood in 1948.
In Israel’s first two decades, when statehood was fragile and survival uncertain, this principle made sense. But after the triumph of the Six-Day War in 1967—a pre-emptive war Ben-Gurion opposed on this diplomatic condition—the rationale collapsed, and the principle should have been retired. Instead, it became orthodoxy.
Fast-forward to today. Recalibrating the U.S.-Israel relationship is no longer an option for some time down the road; it’s an immediate necessity.
As Israel begins to reinvest in its domestic defense industry, it must seize the unique opportunity presented by the Trump administration’s focus on reciprocal, economically grounded partnerships. Israel can—and must—transition from a paycheck client to a strategic partner in economic, technological and military arenas. The opportunities are extensive for both countries. The current hand-out transactional model is not only outdated but embarrassing.
This new partnership can start with a bold step. As Turkey’s naval buildup surges forward, Israeli military planners are rightly eyeing a parallel expansion to secure energy assets and maritime supply lines. Trump’s renewed push for U.S. shipbuilding underscores the potential for a revitalized defense partnership. A joint investment in next-generation weapons, such as a new class of underwater drones, would be an ideal entry point. Both nations stand to benefit by expanding their manufacturing bases and co-producing a platform vital to their navies.
Next: AI, cyber and quantum tech innovation. To his credit, Netanyahu has already begun laying the groundwork with Trump’s economic team. Expanding bilateral trade and innovation agreements would secure Western tech supremacy and reinforce the alliance’s economic core.
In defense, the relationship must move from military aid to co-manufacturing. The priority should be high-impact weapons platforms developed through equal financial investment and joint research—a true square deal, grounded in shared risk and reward. Over the next five years, the $3.8 billion annual U.S. military aid package to Israel should be phased into a joint R&D and manufacturing framework. This would allow Israel to expand its defense industry, scale up production and invest heavily in strategically vital platforms. With robust supply chains, export freedom and a more powerful Israeli war machine, this transformation would only be possible through industrial integration with the United States, not transactional aid.
Missile defense should follow the same path. If Trump’s “golden dome” project is serious, Israel should be at the center of helping to develop it. Its space and intercept technologies could be fully integrated into U.S. missile defense systems, creating true interoperability across the strategic domain. We have already seen this movement in the U.S. missile defense against missile strikes last year from Iran and Yemen.
Diplomatically, Israel must diversify its relations. The Abraham Accords provide a strong foundation. Israel should deepen defense ties with India, South Korea, Japan, Argentina and Australia. As a regional security hub, Israel would allow the United States to pivot to focus on the Indo-Pacific without sacrificing Middle East stability.
True alliances are built on shared strength, cultural affinity and mutual benefit—not dependency. Israel bears much of the responsibility for the current imbalance, having allowed this dependence to deepen and expose the alliance to rupture.
Subordinating Israeli defense policy to Washington’s political mood swings benefits neither country. We are two democracies bound by a shared belief in liberty and law. The alliance has delivered immense value, but it must now evolve. Israel was never meant to be managed. It was meant to lead.
To avert a debacle and prevent a vital alliance from souring, it is time for the recognition that Israel—by proximity, capacity and shared interest—is better suited than Washington to stabilize the region. Shifting the alliance to greater parity, far from undermining American influence, would enhance it for decades to come.
The American and Israeli people are ready. It’s time that their leaders caught up.