The war against Iran may have resulted in some tactical victories for Israel and the United States on the battlefield, but Israel is not winning American public opinion and neither are those American leaders who ardently support it. This dwindling popularity could put in jeopardy the $3.8 billion that Israel receives in U.S. military aid each year. And that $3.8 billion is not all we provide to Israel — we also offer invaluable diplomatic cover on the world stage , in addition to direct U.S. military support during specific crises. Separately, the war in Iran has mostly benefited Israel’s regional agenda and has cost the U.S. taxpayer more than an estimated $50 billion so far. Because of these factors, most Americans are growing wary of the support we give to Israel. To get ahead of the changing sentiments, Israel and their American allies, like U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, are attempting to rebrand the aid we give to Israel each year. Rather than the annual Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlays, anything we give Tel Aviv will be “ based on trade ," according to Huckabee. The goal of this shift is to undermine the notion that Israel is dependent on American hand-outs and that the U.S. taxpayer is footing the bill for the horrific scenes coming out of Gaza and Lebanon. There is, of course, a major catch. The catch is Section 224, cleverly buried deep in the massive National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) , which is entitled “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.” This initiative transitions the traditional aid relationship into a deeper partnership between the U.S. and Israel in many aspects of technological research and development and defense production, and would also give Israel unprecedented access to U.S. technology development and "data fusion." Section 224 essentially transforms Israel from a top U.S. aid recipient to a full member of the U.S. defense and intelligence apparatus.
When it comes to counterintelligence and strategic messaging, the Section 224 initiative is far more damaging to U.S. national security than the previous arrangement. By embedding Israel in the production of critical defense technologies, we are creating access and control mechanisms for a nation that has drastically different goals than America does.
We should instead keep the development of key technologies restricted to Americans only. The dangers of allowing any other nation to access our sensitive military technologies are obvious, including the fact that back doors and spyware can be installed that will most certainly be used by the Israelis to influence U.S. policy. From a strategic messaging perspective, Section 224 is a nightmare for the Trump administration and any lawmaker who supports it. Sentiment in America is turning against Israel, and Section 224 will not help quell the prevailing narrative that Israel has too much influence on the American government. A more troubling aspect of this scheme is that it allows Israeli manufacturers to operate production facilities in the U.S. with an American partner. This stands in contrast to the standard way America provides military support to nations; historically the weapons that the U.S. provides in arms packages are all made in the U.S. by American manufacturers. Section 224 will give Israel the ability to actually create jobs in America. This is a powerful talking point that will give Israel leverage with many members of congress and the American public. Sure, Israeli defense companies and subcontractors currently operate in the U.S. — however they still must compete with American companies, and lack the access to the U.S. government that American defense companies enjoy. Section 224 would turn that on its head as US.-Israel would be co-producing weapons systems, giving Israeli companies an unprecedented edge inside the Pentagon. The idea of Israel creating American jobs by manufacturing military technologies in the U.S. may sound positive on its face. After all, who doesn’t want more American jobs? But this argument is built on the same fallacy that is used to justify the $3.8 billion in military aid that we currently give to Israel: that the aid is mostly spent on American weapons systems, so it’s not actually aid but an investment in American industry, as the pro-Israel lobby claims. First, the idea that we need to give billions to a foreign country to manufacture American weapons systems is ridiculous. Supporters of Israel like Ambassador Huckabee like to say that the $3.8 billion we give to Israel goes back into the American economy. This assumes that we need to give a foreign nation money to fund our defense industry. This is nonsense, We should instead invest the $3.8 billion directly on weapon systems for our own inventories or sell them to nations that don’t need to pay for it with American aid money. Second, the majority of the profits from the defense sector don’t go into creating American jobs or back into American communities, they go to the CEO’s profits and stock buy backs. This has been an issue that President Trump himself has raised .
Moreover, how have Israel’s actions in Iran, Gaza, or Lebanon made America safer and more prosperous? Some of the intelligence we get from the Israelis can be useful, but our increasing over-reliance on it has caused our own capabilities to atrophy.
We are a sovereign nation. We cannot outsource components of our national security to nations that do not share our interests; they will put their own interests first every time. No other government prioritizes the needs of a different country before its own, because that would be foolish. Israel can still be a decent partner, so long as we are clear-eyed about the differences between our two countries and act accordingly.
We must put America’s needs first.