Are We Married to Israel?

The United States-Israel Defense Partnership Act of 2025 (H.R. 1229 in the House and S. 554 in the Senate) is a bipartisan bill introduced on February 12, 2025, in the 119th Congress.

Its primary goal is to enhance and deepen bilateral defense cooperation between the United States and Israel by expanding joint research, development, and deployment of advanced military technologies to address shared threats, such as unmanned systems (drones), tunneling, and emerging technologies.

 Sponsors and Cosponsors

• House version (H.R. 1229) — Led by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) and Rep. Donald Norcross (D-NJ). It has significant bipartisan support, with reports of around 171 cosponsors.
• Senate version (S. 554) — Led by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), with cosponsors including Sens. Gary Peters (D-MI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), and Jacky Rosen (D-NV). It has around 31 cosponsors.

The bill emphasizes leveraging the defense industrial bases of both countries to counter evolving threats from state and non-state actors.

Current Status (as of December 15, 2025)

Both versions remain in committee:

• H.R. 1229: Referred to relevant House committees (e.g., Armed Services, Foreign Affairs).
• S. 554: Referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. No formal committee markup or floor votes have occurred yet, though provisions from the bill have reportedly been considered for inclusion in broader legislation like the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

 Key Provisions

The bill includes several initiatives to strengthen cooperation:

• U.S.-Israel Counter-Unmanned Systems Program → Establishes a joint program authorized at up to $150 million annually through FY 2030 for research, development, testing, and deployment of technologies to counter unmanned aerial systems (drones) and related threats. Activities include sharing expertise, joint R&D, and integration of systems.
• Extension of Existing Cooperations → Extends and enhances U.S.-Israel programs on anti-tunnel technologies, counter-drone capabilities, and missile defense systems.
• War Reserve Stockpile Authority → Extends the War Reserve Stocks Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) program, which allows prepositioning of U.S. equipment and munitions in Israel, through January 1, 2029.
• Defense Innovation Unit in Israel → Requires the Department of Defense to establish a Defense Innovation Unit office in Israel within 180 days of enactment to facilitate collaboration on emerging threats.
• National Technology and Industrial Base (NTIB) Engagement → Directs the Secretary of Defense to engage with Israel on potentially including it in the NTIB (currently limited to the U.S., Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand), allowing deeper integration in defense technology development and production while protecting sensitive information.
• Emerging Technologies Collaboration → Promotes joint work in areas like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, cybersecurity, and other advanced fields.
• Reporting Requirements → Mandates semiannual and annual reports to Congress on program activities, assessments, and recommendations.
• Assessment of Integrated Air and Missile Defense → Includes provisions for evaluating integrated air and missile defense in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) region.

The bill builds on existing U.S.-Israel defense partnerships, such as those for Iron Dome and other missile defense systems and aims to address modern battlefield threats without granting Israel unique legal status beyond enhanced cooperation.

Pros for American Sovereignty

The United States-Israel Defense Partnership Act of 2025 enhances bilateral cooperation without ceding formal U.S. decision-making authority. Key benefits include:

• Voluntary alliances strengthen independent capabilities — Joint R&D on counter-drone systems, AI, and emerging technologies leverages Israel's innovations (e.g., Iron Dome adaptations used on U.S. borders), improving U.S. military effectiveness against shared threats like Iranian-backed drones. This reduces reliance on less reliable partners and maintains U.S. technological edge.
• No loss of control — Programs remain under U.S. oversight (e.g., DoD-led offices, congressional reporting). Prepositioning stocks (WRSA-I) and potential NTIB discussions allow U.S. access to assets in crises, enhancing strategic flexibility.
• Advances U.S. national security autonomously — Cooperation counters global threats (e.g., unmanned systems from state/non-state actors) on U.S. terms, aligning with "peace through strength" without binding treaties that limit unilateral action.
• Bipartisan support frames it as mutual benefit — Proponents (AIPAC, congressional sponsors) argue it protects American interests by innovating faster than adversaries, preserving U.S. leadership in defense tech.

Cons for American Sovereignty

Critics view deeper integration as risking indirect influence or overcommitment, potentially constraining independent U.S. policy. Concerns include:

• Potential foreign influence on U.S. defense priorities → Closer ties, especially exploring Israel's NTIB inclusion (currently limited to Five Eyes nations), could prioritize Israeli threats (e.g., regional conflicts) over broader U.S. interests, subtly shifting resource allocation.
• Risk of entanglement in regional conflicts → Expanded cooperation may draw the U.S. deeper into Middle East disputes, limiting freedom to pivot (e.g., to Indo-Pacific). Analysts note concerns over "entanglement" complicating U.S. neutrality in diplomacy.
• Technology transfer and security risks → Sharing sensitive tech raises risks of leaks or reverse dependencies, potentially eroding U.S. exclusive advantages. NTIB-like status could loosen export controls, exposing "crown jewels."
• Financial and opportunity costs → Authorizing hundreds of millions annually (e.g., $150M/year for counter-UAS) diverts funds from domestic priorities, indirectly tying U.S. budget sovereignty to alliance commitments.

Overall, the bill builds on existing U.S.-Israel ties (e.g., Major Non-NATO Ally status) and does not create supranational authority.

Sovereignty impacts are debated along alliance vs. isolation lines: proponents see empowered independence through partnership; skeptics see risks of undue influence or constrained options. No major public criticism directly labels it a sovereignty threat as of December 2025, with discourse focused on strategic/merits.

Overview of the Proposal's Implications

The United States-Israel Defense Partnership Act of 2025 (embedded in the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA for FY2026) does not create a formal mutual defense treaty or obligate U.S. troops to fight in Israel's conflicts.

It focuses on technological, logistical, and financial enhancements to bilateral cooperation, such as joint R&D on counter-drone systems ($150M/year), anti-tunnel tech ($80M/year), and emerging technologies like AI and cybersecurity ($50M/year), plus extending U.S. War Reserve Stockpile access in Israel until 2029.

This positions the U.S. as a more integrated enabler of Israel's defense capabilities, potentially facilitating quicker and more seamless support during conflicts—without mandating direct combat involvement.

Proponents frame it as "peace through strength," deterring attacks on Israel (and by extension, U.S. interests) via shared innovation.

Critics, however, argue it risks drawing the U.S. deeper into Israel's protracted regional disputes—often derided as "forever wars"—through indirect commitments like arms backfilling and tech integration.

How It Positions the U.S. in Israel's Conflicts

Enhanced Logistical and Technological Backbone: The act allows prepositioned U.S. stockpiles and a new Defense Innovation Unit office in Israel, enabling rapid resupply during escalations (e.g., against Iranian-backed groups or Hezbollah).

It also mandates assessments of integrated air/missile defense in the CENTCOM region, drawing lessons from Iran's 2024 strikes on Israel.

This puts the U.S. in a "force multiplier" role: not frontline fighters, but suppliers of tools that prolong Israel's operational endurance. As one analyst notes, "Israel cannot sustain its wars for long without the US paying for them, sending weapons and protecting it diplomatically."

In practice, this could extend conflicts by filling "gaps" from international embargoes (e.g., from Canada, France), legally binding the U.S. to counter such restrictions with additional aid.

 Proxy Dynamics and Indirect Entanglement

Without a treaty, U.S. involvement remains discretionary, aligning with the 2025 National Security Strategy's emphasis on avoiding "forever wars."

Yet, provisions like restricting presidential withholding of arms deliveries and integrating Israel into the National Technology and Industrial Base (potentially akin to Five Eyes) create structural ties that critics say make disengagement harder.

Israel is often described as a U.S. "proxy," advancing American interests (e.g., countering Iran) while offloading costs—financially ($305M+ in new authorizations), diplomatically (e.g., blocking ICC warrants), and militarily—back to Washington.

This could escalate risks, as U.S.-supplied tech (e.g., AI targeting) implicates America in alleged war crimes in Gaza or elsewhere, potentially drawing retaliatory strikes or legal blowback.

 Pros and Cons for U.S. Posture in "Forever Wars"

In summary, the act cements the U.S. as Israel's indispensable rear-guard—empowering deterrence but inviting the very entanglements it claims to avoid. As one observer put it, "Israel is already an appendage of the US; any wars it launches are invariably US wars."

With the NDAA advancing rapidly as a "must-pass" bill, it reflects ongoing tensions between alliance loyalty and restraint in a post-Afghanistan era.

 The 20 Year Aid Memo

The United States-Israel Defense Partnership Act of 2025 (H.R. 1229/S. 554) is entirely different from the proposed 20-year security aid plan (a successor Memorandum of Understanding or MOU) that Israel is reportedly seeking.

Key Differences

Context on the 20-Year Proposal

Reports from November 2025 indicate Israel floated a 20-year deal during initial talks, doubling the traditional 10-year term to provide long-term predictability amid regional threats and U.S. domestic debates over foreign aid.

It includes proposals to reframe some aid as mutual R&D benefiting U.S. jobs and tech, aligning with "America First" priorities. However, this remains aspirational—no formal agreement exists as of December 15, 2025, and it faces challenges from fiscal conservatives and critics of prolonged commitments.

The Partnership Act enhances operational ties in the near term, while the hoped-for 20-year MOU would lock in broader financial support far into the future. They are complementary at most, not interchangeable. 

Israel's Motivations for Seeking Substantial U.S. Aid

Israel's requests for extensive U.S. military and security assistance stem from a combination of existential security threats, economic constraints, and strategic imperatives.

As the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign aid since World War II (totaling around $174 billion in non-inflation-adjusted dollars), Israel views this support as essential for maintaining its defense capabilities amid regional hostilities.

Recent proposals, like a hoped-for 20-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) potentially exceeding $4 billion annually, reflect efforts to secure long-term stability while adapting to U.S. "America First" priorities.

 Below, I outline the primary reasons, drawing from expert analyses and reports.

1. Security and Threat Environment

• Israel faces ongoing threats from state and non-state actors, including Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups. As the only democracy in a volatile Middle East, it is "constantly under attack," requiring advanced weaponry and funding to deter aggression and respond effectively.
• U.S. aid helps maintain Israel's "qualitative military edge" (QME) over potential adversaries, ensuring technological superiority in areas like missile defense (e.g., Iron Dome) and counter-drone systems.

Without such support, Israel argues it could not sustain prolonged conflicts, as seen in operations against Hamas in Gaza, where U.S. munitions and financing have been pivotal.

2. Economic and Resource Limitations

• Israel's economy is relatively small compared to its defense needs. To cut costs, it has outsourced much of its ammunition and weapons production to the U.S., relying on aid to subsidize these imports rather than building everything domestically.

 This allows Israel to allocate resources elsewhere while benefiting from U.S. economies of scale.

• Long-term aid agreements provide budgetary predictability, enabling multi-year planning without annual uncertainties. The proposed 20-year MOU, for instance, aims to double the typical 10-year term for greater stability.

 3. Strategic Partnership and Mutual Benefits

• Israel positions the alliance as mutually beneficial: It shares intelligence on terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and regional threats, helping the U.S. address traditional security challenges.
• Joint R&D in technologies like cybersecurity and AI also advances U.S. capabilities, with provisions in recent proposals emphasizing "America First" elements, such as directing aid toward U.S.-based jobs and innovation.

Historically, this partnership has been framed as advancing shared democratic values and countering common enemies, with U.S. aid seen as an investment in Middle East stability that indirectly protects American interests.

 4. Enabling Military Posture and Deterrence

• Aid is viewed as a "crucial enabling factor" for Israel's defensive and offensive operations, allowing it to maintain an aggressive stance against threats without exhausting its own resources.

 This includes prepositioned U.S. stockpiles and joint programs that enhance interoperability, deterring attacks by signaling unbreakable U.S. backing.

Criticisms and Broader Context

While these motivations are from Israel's perspective, critics argue that such aid fosters dependency, enables prolonged conflicts (e.g., in Gaza), and draws the U.S. deeper into regional disputes, potentially at the expense of American priorities.

Nonetheless, bipartisan U.S. support has sustained high aid levels, with successive administrations and Congress viewing Israel as a key ally.

The amount—far exceeding aid to other nations—reflects both Israel's lobbying efforts (e.g., via AIPAC) and geopolitical calculations.

For the full bill text:

• House: congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1229
• Senate: congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/554