In recent weeks, US Vice President JD Vance has made statements and suggestions implying that the military aid provided by the United States to Israel gives Washington the right to demand that Israel follow American policy. He has even hinted at restrictions or delays in weapons deliveries if Israel does not act in accordance with US wishes.
This is a troubling view. At best, it reflects only a partial understanding of reality. At worst, it represents an unfair attempt to exert political pressure by presenting an incomplete picture.
US military assistance to Israel currently stands at approximately $3.8 billion a year. The current agreement, signed in 2016 and covering the decade from 2019 through 2028, totals about $38 billion. Contrary to the impression sometimes created, however, this is not money sent to Israel without anything being received in return. It is a strategic arrangement that clearly serves American interests.
Over the years, senior American officials have described Israel as “the American aircraft carrier that cannot be sunk.” That description did not emerge by accident. Israel is the strongest and most stable US ally in the Middle East, a region in which Washington invests enormous resources to preserve its influence and protect its allies.
When Israel acts against Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Houthis, it is not defending only itself. Its actions also contribute to the security of moderate Arab states and to the protection of American interests throughout the region. Israel helps defend international trade routes, preserve the stability of global energy markets, and contain extremist forces that threaten the regional order.
In other words, Israel performs a role that would otherwise require a far broader, more expensive, and more dangerous American military presence.
The American public repeatedly hears that the United States gives Israel billions of dollars. What is mentioned far less often is that nearly all of that assistance must now be spent on American defense products.
Israel uses the funds to purchase American-made F-35 and F-15 fighter jets, Apache helicopters, radar systems, advanced munitions, precision-guided bombs, and communications equipment.
The significance is clear: the money does not remain in Israel. It flows back into the American economy, strengthens the US defense manufacturing supply chain, and supports tens of thousands of jobs across the United States. Major companies such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, RTX, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics benefit from orders worth billions of dollars.
Portraying the assistance as an act of one-sided generosity, therefore, misrepresents the facts. In practice, it is also an American jobs program.
Israel's contributions
There is another element that is often overlooked: Israel’s security and technological contribution to the United States.
For years, Israel has served as a unique operational laboratory. Weapons systems, missile defenses, cybertechnology, artificial intelligence, and intelligence capabilities are tested under real-world conditions. The operational experience gained in Israel is shared regularly with American defense agencies and contributes directly to the capabilities of the US military.
Since the October 7 attack, Israel has become an especially valuable source of operational knowledge for Western militaries. Its experience confronting underground terrorist infrastructure, drone attacks, rocket and missile fire, and the integration of artificial intelligence into the battlefield provides lessons with few equivalents anywhere in the world.
Those lessons are now being studied by American defense institutions and are influencing the development of future US military doctrines.
Systems such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow 2, and Arrow 3 were developed through Israeli American cooperation. Some of their components are manufactured in the United States and others in Israel. The knowledge accumulated through their development also serves American forces and helps protect US interests around the world.
Israel’s intelligence contribution is equally significant. Over the years, Israel has provided critical information about Iran, terrorist organizations, weapons smuggling, and international threats. Senior American officials have repeatedly acknowledged that Israeli intelligence has helped prevent attacks and save lives, including the lives of American civilians and soldiers.
Vance should understand that military assistance to Israel is not a one-sided burden on the American taxpayer. He should also examine the cost of the American military presence in the Middle East.
Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest American military base in the region, houses thousands of troops, aircraft, and operational headquarters. The cost of operating and maintaining it is estimated at about $1 billion a year. That is in addition to the enormous sums spent on bases, logistics, and American forces deployed throughout the region.
Israel, by contrast, does not require the permanent deployment of American troops on its soil. It provides the United States with intelligence, technology, operational experience, and a first-rate regional deterrent capability.
In many respects, Israel gives Washington strategic advantages that would otherwise require much greater American investment.
The real question, therefore, is not how much aid to Israel costs, but how much it would cost the United States to protect the same interests without Israel as a central strategic partner.
When statements are made suggesting that the United States “controls” Israel through military assistance, it is worth asking who truly benefits from the agreement.
Israel receives advanced weapons and maintains a qualitative military advantage. The United States gains a stable ally in a sensitive region, high-quality intelligence, technological innovation, regional influence, and a stronger defense industry.
This is not a relationship between a benefactor and a recipient of charity. It is a strategic, security, and economic arrangement from which the United States benefits no less than Israel.
The state of Israel was established so that the Jewish people would no longer depend on the decisions of others when it comes to their security. Israel’s government is elected by Israeli citizens, and its first duty is to protect them.
When American officials suggest that weapons deliveries could be conditioned on compliance with a particular policy, they are effectively asking a sovereign country to surrender its independent security judgment. It is doubtful that the United States would accept similar treatment from another country.
Investing in security
The simple question should therefore be directed to Vance: How would the United States respond if, following a ceasefire imposed from abroad, hundreds of American civilians were killed in terrorist attacks or missile strikes? Would Washington accept a situation in which a foreign power prevented it from defending its own citizens?
The answer is obvious.
Before threatening a weapons embargo or using military assistance as an instrument of political pressure, it is worth studying the facts.
The alliance between Israel and the United States is not based on pity or one-sided generosity. It is based on shared interests, shared values, and clear mutual benefit.
Military assistance is not a gift. It is an American investment that produces substantial strategic, security, and economic returns. Anyone seeking a serious discussion about the future of relations between the two countries must recognize that aid to Israel is not merely support for an ally. It is also an American investment in its own security.
The facts show that this is one of the most successful, stable, and mutually beneficial strategic partnerships the United States has maintained in recent decades.
The author is the CEO of Radios 100FM, an honorary consul, deputy dean of the consular diplomatic corps, president of the Israeli Radio Communications Association, and vice president of the Ambassadors Club. He previously served as a military affairs correspondent for Israel’s Army Radio and as a television correspondent for NBC News.