The military union of the USA and Israel. Old friends want to "formalize the relationship"
The United States and Israel gathered to sign an agreement on mutual military assistance. Although almost all of his history Israel and so is the most important ally of the United States in the Middle East, now they decided to give this union normative confirmation.
The desire to conclude a military assistance agreement between the United States and Israel was announced by the leaders of two states: US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The first to want to sign a contract was Donald Trump on his Twitter page. The American president wrote that he was looking forward to concluding the agreement.
The message of Donald trump was very warmly answered by the Israeli prime minister. Netanyahu called the planned treaty historic and noted that Israel has never had a closer friend as US president than current head of state Donald Trump. And this is true - Trump never hid his pro-Israeli sympathies, unlike many of his predecessors and, first of all, Barack Obama, who, at least, was obliged to take into account the interests of the Islamic world.
US military cooperation with Israel began almost immediately after the emergence of an independent Jewish state. To a large extent, it was US assistance that enabled Israel to create a strong, maneuverable, and well-armed army. The United States has always invested tremendous money in strengthening Israel’s defense capabilities. One of the main reasons for this support is the presence in the United States of a huge and very influential Jewish diaspora that sympathizes with Israel.
But even not so much the lobby of politicians and financiers of Jewish descent, as geopolitical interests have led the United States to Israel. After all, there is no one to rely on in the Middle East. And rapidly deteriorating relations with Turkey showed that Ankara could hardly be called Washington’s military-political ally. But Israel, a military alliance with America is vital, because the country is in a purely hostile environment, and even Arab and Muslim countries loyal to Israel in reality are still not his true friends.
But with the long and close military-political relations between the USA and Israel, there has never been a formal military alliance between the two countries. For example, the United States must come to the aid of any country - a member of the North Atlantic Alliance. If one of the NATO countries is attacked, then the United States, according to the 5-th article of the North Atlantic Treaty of the 1949 year, are obliged to intervene. In the 1960 year, the Agreement on cooperation and security guarantees between the United States and Japan was signed, and such an agreement was signed with South Korea in the 1953 year. In 1951, agreements were concluded with Australia and New Zealand.
Thus, the United States is bound by contractual obligations with all the friendly countries in Europe, Oceania, and East Asia. Until recently, there was no such agreement with Israel, which actually freed Washington’s hands in the event of any military operations of a third country against Israel. Previously, the United States had no obligation to immediately intervene.
Now, if Trump and Netanyahu sign an agreement on military cooperation, Israel will formally become an ally of the United States - a full-fledged ally. It’s no coincidence that Benjamin Netanyahu scattered compliments in front of Donald Trump. It was under this president that the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, recognized the sovereignty of the Jewish state over the Golan Heights. It means a lot. Moreover, until recently, Washington nevertheless tried to take into account the position of the Arab states. But Trump showed that he did not care deeply about the image of Washington in the eyes of the Arab world, and relations with Israel are more expensive for him than relations with all the Arab partners of the United States combined.
Against the backdrop of a deepening confrontation with Iran, treaty obligations with Israel may acquire another meaning. If Iran decides to launch missile attacks on Israel, then the United States, according to allied commitments, will simply be required to intervene. And the actions of the Americans in relation to Iran in this case will not look like aggression - Washington will show the world that it simply came to the aid of its weaker militarily weak ally. Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz bluntly emphasized that the upcoming union agreement between the two countries would be directed against Iran, which the Israeli leadership considers the main threat to the national security of the Jewish state.
Many analysts agree that the US-Israeli agreement, if signed, could be another plus point for Benjamin Netanyahu. Soon, the elections in Israel and the current prime minister really need the opportunity to demonstrate their achievements as head of government. A military treaty with the United States amid growing risks of Middle Eastern politics - what is not evidence of Netanyahu’s political success?
In addition, the Israeli leadership hopes that such an agreement will protect the country in the event of an attack by Iran. And, of course, many ordinary Israeli voters will also support a treaty that seems to increase the security of the Jewish state.
In the USA, there is also an impressive circle of people interested in signing the contract. First of all, it’s the “hawks” focused on tightening Washington’s foreign policy in the Middle East. For them, Iran is an unequivocal enemy with whom it is necessary to speak the language of bombs and missiles. These "hawks" included the recently retired ex-national security adviser John Bolton, who was one of the founders of the Israel Friends Initiative and was very unhappy with Trump's refusal to launch a missile attack on Iran.
Senator Lindsay Graham is another notable American politician insisting on the need to strike at Iran’s oil infrastructure. He also supported the conclusion of a treaty with Israel. The position of the “hawks” boils down to the fact that Israel is the unequivocal and reliable US ally in the fight against Iran, in contrast to the vacillating countries of Western Europe and the Arab states, whose population is unlikely to approve the next massacre of Muslims by the US military in the case of missile bombing attacks on Iranian infrastructure.
In addition, the conclusion of an agreement with Israel allows and to some extent regulate the position of Russia in the event of a conflict with Iran. Indeed, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly emphasized the country's special relations with the Jewish state and its friendship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That is, through Israel, it will be easier for the Americans to interact with Moscow in the event of an armed confrontation with Iran.
However, there are opponents in Israel to conclude an agreement with the United States. According to some Jewish politicians, such an agreement may deprive the country of the opportunity to act independently, and some steps will have to be coordinated with Washington. For example, Lieutenant General Beni Ganz, the main rival of Benjamin Netanyahu in the race for the post of head of the Israeli government, is opposed to concluding a treaty of military alliance with the United States.
Beni Ganz is a man whose opinion in Israel is heeded. After all, he is not just a politician, but in the past a major military leader, lieutenant general, former chief of the general staff of the IDF in 2011-2015. That is, Ganz has a sufficient amount of knowledge and personal experience as the chief of the general staff, allowing to draw conclusions about the consequences of the agreement between the United States and Israel.
Gantz believes that such a treaty is more likely to harm the Jewish state. Even from a pragmatic point of view, it is more profitable not to have such an agreement with the USA than to have it, and from a symbolic point of view it is completely lost: according to Ganz, Israel has never asked anyone for protection and it is better for him to never do this.
Ganz is not the only Israeli military leader to critically assess the prospects for concluding a treaty. Allied commitments to the United States can indeed subjugate Israel to Washington in the military sphere, forcing them to fulfill American requirements in the field of defense and security.
Reserve Major-General Amos Yadlin, who headed the intelligence agency AMAN (Intelligence Directorate of the Israeli Defense Forces) in 2006-2010, is now the director of the Institute for National Security Research (INSS) at Tel Aviv University. He also believes that the union agreement will negatively affect the organization of the planning of the Israeli army.
For the Israeli military, accustomed to complete independence, the need to coordinate their actions with the Pentagon, and even on secondary roles, can really be a much worse prospect than the lack of a treaty. Moreover, Israel also has its own significant military potential, which allows protecting the country from possible aggression from Iran.
However, on the whole, the Israeli elite is more likely to be dominated by the view that such an agreement is necessary with the United States. Another thing is that in the USA itself, not everything is so simple. Trump has an impressive opposition not only in the person of the Democratic Party and its proteges, but also in the ranks of the Republicans. Much will depend on how the Israeli lobby manages to influence the US Congress.
The most important thing for Washington is the consequence of concluding a treaty with Israel - not so much even open opportunities for confrontation with Iran, but rather a demonstrative break in good relations with the Arab world.
Even the oil monarchies of the Persian Gulf, including the UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, will not be able to agree with the new role of the United States as Israel’s open military ally. No matter how close Riyadh's relations with Washington are, one will have to choose between loyalty to Washington and stability in his kingdom. Indeed, in Saudi Arabia, the mood among the bulk of the Arabs is anti-Israeli.
There is no doubt that if the United States decides on the demonstrative conclusion of an agreement on military cooperation with Israel, this will go to a total deterioration in relations with the Arab world. Trump’s reputation in the Arab world, which, in general, doesn’t give a damn, was already hit first by restricting entry for citizens of seven Muslim countries, and then by demonstrative recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Now, if the United States declares itself to be an open ally of Israel, the Arabs will finally be convinced that Washington cannot be for them not only a friend, but also a reliable partner.
Naturally, the alliance between the United States and Israel will also affect relations with Turkey, which are already becoming increasingly tense. As a result, the countries of the Middle East will swing towards cooperation with other centers of power - Russia and China. Another thing is that the United States can try to create a counterbalance to the Arab world and play the Kurdish card - the 50-millionth people are still deprived of their statehood, and the lands they inhabit are part of several Asian countries.
What did Trump and Netanyahu decide?
The desire to conclude a military assistance agreement between the United States and Israel was announced by the leaders of two states: US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The first to want to sign a contract was Donald Trump on his Twitter page. The American president wrote that he was looking forward to concluding the agreement.
The message of Donald trump was very warmly answered by the Israeli prime minister. Netanyahu called the planned treaty historic and noted that Israel has never had a closer friend as US president than current head of state Donald Trump. And this is true - Trump never hid his pro-Israeli sympathies, unlike many of his predecessors and, first of all, Barack Obama, who, at least, was obliged to take into account the interests of the Islamic world.
US military cooperation with Israel began almost immediately after the emergence of an independent Jewish state. To a large extent, it was US assistance that enabled Israel to create a strong, maneuverable, and well-armed army. The United States has always invested tremendous money in strengthening Israel’s defense capabilities. One of the main reasons for this support is the presence in the United States of a huge and very influential Jewish diaspora that sympathizes with Israel.
But even not so much the lobby of politicians and financiers of Jewish descent, as geopolitical interests have led the United States to Israel. After all, there is no one to rely on in the Middle East. And rapidly deteriorating relations with Turkey showed that Ankara could hardly be called Washington’s military-political ally. But Israel, a military alliance with America is vital, because the country is in a purely hostile environment, and even Arab and Muslim countries loyal to Israel in reality are still not his true friends.
But with the long and close military-political relations between the USA and Israel, there has never been a formal military alliance between the two countries. For example, the United States must come to the aid of any country - a member of the North Atlantic Alliance. If one of the NATO countries is attacked, then the United States, according to the 5-th article of the North Atlantic Treaty of the 1949 year, are obliged to intervene. In the 1960 year, the Agreement on cooperation and security guarantees between the United States and Japan was signed, and such an agreement was signed with South Korea in the 1953 year. In 1951, agreements were concluded with Australia and New Zealand.
Thus, the United States is bound by contractual obligations with all the friendly countries in Europe, Oceania, and East Asia. Until recently, there was no such agreement with Israel, which actually freed Washington’s hands in the event of any military operations of a third country against Israel. Previously, the United States had no obligation to immediately intervene.
Now, if Trump and Netanyahu sign an agreement on military cooperation, Israel will formally become an ally of the United States - a full-fledged ally. It’s no coincidence that Benjamin Netanyahu scattered compliments in front of Donald Trump. It was under this president that the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, recognized the sovereignty of the Jewish state over the Golan Heights. It means a lot. Moreover, until recently, Washington nevertheless tried to take into account the position of the Arab states. But Trump showed that he did not care deeply about the image of Washington in the eyes of the Arab world, and relations with Israel are more expensive for him than relations with all the Arab partners of the United States combined.
Against the backdrop of a deepening confrontation with Iran, treaty obligations with Israel may acquire another meaning. If Iran decides to launch missile attacks on Israel, then the United States, according to allied commitments, will simply be required to intervene. And the actions of the Americans in relation to Iran in this case will not look like aggression - Washington will show the world that it simply came to the aid of its weaker militarily weak ally. Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz bluntly emphasized that the upcoming union agreement between the two countries would be directed against Iran, which the Israeli leadership considers the main threat to the national security of the Jewish state.
How the alliance with the USA is perceived in Israel
Many analysts agree that the US-Israeli agreement, if signed, could be another plus point for Benjamin Netanyahu. Soon, the elections in Israel and the current prime minister really need the opportunity to demonstrate their achievements as head of government. A military treaty with the United States amid growing risks of Middle Eastern politics - what is not evidence of Netanyahu’s political success?
In addition, the Israeli leadership hopes that such an agreement will protect the country in the event of an attack by Iran. And, of course, many ordinary Israeli voters will also support a treaty that seems to increase the security of the Jewish state.
In the USA, there is also an impressive circle of people interested in signing the contract. First of all, it’s the “hawks” focused on tightening Washington’s foreign policy in the Middle East. For them, Iran is an unequivocal enemy with whom it is necessary to speak the language of bombs and missiles. These "hawks" included the recently retired ex-national security adviser John Bolton, who was one of the founders of the Israel Friends Initiative and was very unhappy with Trump's refusal to launch a missile attack on Iran.
Senator Lindsay Graham is another notable American politician insisting on the need to strike at Iran’s oil infrastructure. He also supported the conclusion of a treaty with Israel. The position of the “hawks” boils down to the fact that Israel is the unequivocal and reliable US ally in the fight against Iran, in contrast to the vacillating countries of Western Europe and the Arab states, whose population is unlikely to approve the next massacre of Muslims by the US military in the case of missile bombing attacks on Iranian infrastructure.
In addition, the conclusion of an agreement with Israel allows and to some extent regulate the position of Russia in the event of a conflict with Iran. Indeed, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly emphasized the country's special relations with the Jewish state and its friendship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That is, through Israel, it will be easier for the Americans to interact with Moscow in the event of an armed confrontation with Iran.
However, there are opponents in Israel to conclude an agreement with the United States. According to some Jewish politicians, such an agreement may deprive the country of the opportunity to act independently, and some steps will have to be coordinated with Washington. For example, Lieutenant General Beni Ganz, the main rival of Benjamin Netanyahu in the race for the post of head of the Israeli government, is opposed to concluding a treaty of military alliance with the United States.
Beni Ganz is a man whose opinion in Israel is heeded. After all, he is not just a politician, but in the past a major military leader, lieutenant general, former chief of the general staff of the IDF in 2011-2015. That is, Ganz has a sufficient amount of knowledge and personal experience as the chief of the general staff, allowing to draw conclusions about the consequences of the agreement between the United States and Israel.
Gantz believes that such a treaty is more likely to harm the Jewish state. Even from a pragmatic point of view, it is more profitable not to have such an agreement with the USA than to have it, and from a symbolic point of view it is completely lost: according to Ganz, Israel has never asked anyone for protection and it is better for him to never do this.
Ganz is not the only Israeli military leader to critically assess the prospects for concluding a treaty. Allied commitments to the United States can indeed subjugate Israel to Washington in the military sphere, forcing them to fulfill American requirements in the field of defense and security.
Reserve Major-General Amos Yadlin, who headed the intelligence agency AMAN (Intelligence Directorate of the Israeli Defense Forces) in 2006-2010, is now the director of the Institute for National Security Research (INSS) at Tel Aviv University. He also believes that the union agreement will negatively affect the organization of the planning of the Israeli army.
For the Israeli military, accustomed to complete independence, the need to coordinate their actions with the Pentagon, and even on secondary roles, can really be a much worse prospect than the lack of a treaty. Moreover, Israel also has its own significant military potential, which allows protecting the country from possible aggression from Iran.
However, on the whole, the Israeli elite is more likely to be dominated by the view that such an agreement is necessary with the United States. Another thing is that in the USA itself, not everything is so simple. Trump has an impressive opposition not only in the person of the Democratic Party and its proteges, but also in the ranks of the Republicans. Much will depend on how the Israeli lobby manages to influence the US Congress.
Will the United States decide to break with the Arab world
The most important thing for Washington is the consequence of concluding a treaty with Israel - not so much even open opportunities for confrontation with Iran, but rather a demonstrative break in good relations with the Arab world.
Even the oil monarchies of the Persian Gulf, including the UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, will not be able to agree with the new role of the United States as Israel’s open military ally. No matter how close Riyadh's relations with Washington are, one will have to choose between loyalty to Washington and stability in his kingdom. Indeed, in Saudi Arabia, the mood among the bulk of the Arabs is anti-Israeli.
There is no doubt that if the United States decides on the demonstrative conclusion of an agreement on military cooperation with Israel, this will go to a total deterioration in relations with the Arab world. Trump’s reputation in the Arab world, which, in general, doesn’t give a damn, was already hit first by restricting entry for citizens of seven Muslim countries, and then by demonstrative recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Now, if the United States declares itself to be an open ally of Israel, the Arabs will finally be convinced that Washington cannot be for them not only a friend, but also a reliable partner.
Naturally, the alliance between the United States and Israel will also affect relations with Turkey, which are already becoming increasingly tense. As a result, the countries of the Middle East will swing towards cooperation with other centers of power - Russia and China. Another thing is that the United States can try to create a counterbalance to the Arab world and play the Kurdish card - the 50-millionth people are still deprived of their statehood, and the lands they inhabit are part of several Asian countries.
Information