Every 10 years, Republican and Democratic administrations, with the support of Congress, sign a memorandum of understanding to assist Israel’s ability to defend itself and, at the same time, they financially strengthen the American defense industry by requiring that all money spent stays in the United States. Even President Obama’s animosity toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not stop him from offering Israel “the single largest pledge of bilateral military assistance in U.S. history.”
As just one of many examples of how Israel and America help one another, today they are working together to build a hypersonic anti-missile defense system to thwart the threat of Chinese, North Korean and Iranian hypersonic missiles. Israel is allocating more than $200 million in 2023 to develop the Glide Phase Hypersonic Missile Interceptor. That Israel’s military technology benefits American national security is often ignored by those who claim American aid is a one-way street. Last month, Israel struck an advanced missile research site in Isfahan, Iran. Danny Yatom, former head of the Mossad, told Army Radio that the attack “targeted a facility developing hypersonic missiles.”
Yet the future of American foreign aid is anything but certain. A combination of factors will make the seemingly automatic renewal of financial support for Israel a more challenging proposition for any future administration. The current memorandum expires in 2028, just two years before the mothballed Iran nuclear agreement’s sunset provisions expire. The timing is important, since the Biden administration is still trying to convince the Iranians to rejoin the deal (despite claims to the contrary). According to Iran International, the State Department has not denied that the administration’s point man for this, Robert Malley, “met with Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations in New York, at least three times in the last two months.”
There is recent history of Congress challenging U.S. aid to Israel. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) voted with anti-Israel progressives against Iron Dome funding, saying, “My position of no foreign aid might sound extreme to some, but I think it’s extreme to bankrupt our country and put future generations of Americans in hock to our creditors.” Another harbinger of growing Republican isolationism may be the increasing number of Republicans resisting additional aid to Ukraine — which, like Israel, has not asked for American soldiers, only for arms to defend itself.
Meanwhile, the rise of the anti-Israel progressive Democrats means they’ll likely challenge any future funding for the Jewish state. And many mainstream Democrats are fearful that public support of Israel will make them a target for a progressive primary challenge in the next election.
In 2021, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) introduced legislation to condition aid to Israel, one of several recent bills aimed at curbing Israel’s policies toward Palestinians. But some progressives, such as Reps. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) and Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), condemned the withholding of funding for Iron Dome that same year. Said Torres, “A missile defense system (Iron Dome) defends civilians from missiles — hence, the name. Only in a morally inverted universe would this be considered a ‘controversy.’” His courage in speaking against those who are harshly critical of Israel should be applauded.
As Israeli President Isaac Herzog has said, “It is no secret that the future of the [U.S.-Israel] relationship is increasingly dependent on the next generations and it is where we have an immense challenge.”
Israel could live without American military aid but it would strain Israel’s economy. And it would hurt America’s military preparedness, which has come to rely somewhat on Israeli innovations to protect our soldiers and give us tactical advantages.
Foreign aid, in general, doesn’t play well with the American people. According to Brookings Institution, “Opinion polls consistently report that Americans believe foreign aid is in the range of 25 percent of the federal budget. When asked how much it should be, they say about 10 percent. In fact, at $39.2 billion for 2019, foreign assistance is less than 1 percent of the federal budget.” While it is the “world’s largest provider of foreign assistance in terms of dollars, America falls near the bottom of the OECD countries when spending is compared to its gross national income.”
Many Americans don’t appreciate that, with Israel, we get disproportionate security leverage for a relatively small amount of foreign funding, including intelligence vital to our security, especially since we have chosen to withdraw our emphasis from the Middle East to confront China in the Pacific theater.
In the Middle East, America has had longstanding financial commitments to Israel and Egypt because the 1979 peace agreement has worked remarkably well. The stability of both U.S. allies is vital in keeping the region from coming under the sway of Iran’s Islamist regime or the rise of the jihadist Sunni organizations. This is foreign aid at its best.
Long-range Israeli planners should consider the possibility of decreased American aid in the future. Some believe the relationship would be healthier, stronger and on more equal footing if American financial assistance wound down, thereby decreasing U.S. influence on Israeli policy. Long-term Israeli planners are looking east for relationships with India, South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, to rely on more than just the goodwill of the United States.
But it may not be a choice for Israel, if isolationist and fiscally conservative Republicans, along with anti-Israel Democrats, continue to grow in power in Congress — and especially if one of them becomes president.
Dr. Eric R. Mandel is the director of MEPIN, the Middle East Political Information Network. He regularly briefs members of Congress and their foreign policy aides. He is the senior security editor for the Jerusalem Report. Follow him on Twitter @MepinOrg.