In recent weeks, the possibility of Israel signing a “defensive alliance” with the United States has been actively discussed by the media as part of a larger topic — the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The supporters of signing such an agreement with the US, would obviously argue that Israel should definitely “seize the opportunity” and sign the treaty as soon as possible. Nevertheless, despite all optimistic predictions, a more thoughtful analysis of the prospects of such an alliance clearly shows that in addition to its obvious advantages, it has some serious disadvantages, including those that are essential to Israel’s security. In fact, it is largely due to this reason that although the opportunity to sign such an agreement has been presented several times in recent decades, it has never been signed.
Below are some of the most serious doubts:
1. A defensive alliance is essentially an agreement committing both sides to defend each other during warfare. That is why, it is not difficult to realize that the Americans, having signed the treaty, will do everything to prevent Israel from dragging them into any war in which the U.S. is not interested. In other words, Israel’s freedom of military action could be seriously undermined. For example, under the current Biden administration, Israel, by signing the treaty, will most likely be denied the opportunity to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Since the Americans will quite rightly consider such a development an inevitable scenario leading them to war with the Iranian regime.
Remember: after the successful Israeli attack on a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, the U.S. stopped supplying Israel with F-16 airplanes, and working relations between the security structures of both countries were seriously undermined for a long time. The U.S. also disagreed to attack the Syrian nuclear reactor, even though it was being built by the North Korean regime, a fierce enemy of the United States. As a result, even in this situation Israel had to act on its own and eliminate the threat single-handedly.
Therefore, protecting the IDF’s freedom of action — the independence of our army from the changing attitudes of the U.S. administration — is Israel’s most important interest, and, as a result, it is extremely dangerous to limit it by any agreement.
Moreover, such an agreement could already seriously complicate Israel’s efforts to prevent the Iranian regime from posing a threat in Syria. It could also significantly restrict our freedom of action to deal with Hizbullah and other terrorist groups supported by the Iranian regime in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria. Such a situation is unacceptable to Israel.
2. Let us also note that the defensive alliance is a “bilateral” agreement, and therefore it obliges Israel to send its military forces or intervene using strikes (Air Force/Navy/Special Forces) in the situation in various countries, to the extent that the U.S. considers it appropriate to safeguard its national interests.
In other words, the chances of Israel getting involved in military conflicts on other fronts around the world would increase significantly. The US may demand from Israel to take a clearly pro-American stance in certain conflicts in which, until now, Israel has chosen, on the basis of its own interests, not to participate or not to take a firm stance. The U.S. will also be able to request the deployment of IDF soldiers to various conflict zones in Africa, Europe, the Middle East, etc.. — as they, for example, demanded of their NATO allies in the first and second Iraq wars, as well as during the war in Afghanistan.
3. The agreement will allow the U.S. to put far more pressure on Israel to make concessions to the PA Arabs on the basis that Israel has nothing to fear now that “America is protecting it.”
4. Even worse, the claim that the U.S. is now providing Israel with a full “protective umbrella” will allow the U.S. to exert greater pressure on Israel to join the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. In fact, the U.S. will be able to demand from Israel to limit its nuclear capabilities, which, according to foreign publications, exist and are quite powerful, claiming that Israel no longer needs nuclear weapons, since the U.S. provides it with protection and guarantees its security. In reality, this would simply make us vassals of the U.S. administration, completely depriving us of our independence.
Today, Israel is not a member of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and continues to maintain a policy of “ambiguity” when it comes to this sensitive issue, which is crucial to national security. Israel is also not a signatory to the Convention on the Destruction of Chemical Weapons, which has been signed by almost every country in the world. According to foreign publications, Israel possesses both significant chemical and biological military capabilities. It should be obvious that, considering the dramatic change for the worse in the attitude of American Democrats toward Israel’s right to exist, a “defense treaty” agreement with the U.S. will not really satisfy our country’s real need to have a decisive deterrent against hostile regimes, based today on unconventional weapons, including, according to foreign publications, submarines armed with Jericho missiles with nuclear warheads.
Let me remind you that the United States once succeeded in forcing Taiwan and South Korea to cancel the development of the nuclear weapons which they had initiated. These countries were forced, under their obligations to the U.S. and in accordance with their agreements with the U.S., to agree to the demands of the U.S. administration. Today, looking at the events in Ukraine, from which, by the way, they also achieved nuclear disarmament, the leaders of these countries probably regret those decisions.
5. For decades, Israel has successfully portrayed itself in the eyes of the American public and politicians as a strong country, requiring assistance only in terms of advanced weaponry, but never asking for foreign soldiers for its own defense. Signing the defense treaty will do enormous damage to Israel’s reputation, transforming it in the public mind from an “asset” with independent capabilities into a “burden” that must be defended, and thus sacrifice the lives of American soldiers.
6. Israel is already enjoying the remarkable benefits of partnership and cooperation with the United States without having to pay the high price that the so-called “defense alliance” would impose on us. Israel, for example, receives quality U.S. intelligence, stealth aircraft, and exceptional security assistance of almost $4 billion each year. Moreover, after the first Gulf War, the United States also committed to place missile defense batteries in Israel in case of a large-scale military conflict. Relevant joint Israeli-American exercises are conducted every year.
Thus, Israel already enjoys most of the advantages of such an agreement without suffering from the serious disadvantages hidden in it.
Therefore, rather than signing a freedom-binding “defense alliance,” Israel should rather continue to deepen its existing cooperation with the U.S. and strengthen the special relationship. This is quite possible now, primarily because of the Biden administration’s current ambition to secure a peace agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia before the upcoming elections. This is precisely the American interest, and Israel should benefit from it!
7. It is also important to remember that the U.S. has already withdrawn from several agreements it has signed in the past, including defense agreements it had with Taiwan and New Zealand. Signing an agreement with one American administration may not be acceptable to another administration that will replace it, whereas the security concessions which Israel will be forced to make as part of the agreement may be irreversible and cause enormous damage to our security. Signing an agreement with one American administration may not be acceptable to another administration that will replace it, whereas the security concessions which Israel will be forced to make as part of the agreement may be irreversible and cause enormous damage to our security.
8. Signing such an agreement could also prevent Israel from having the political freedom of maneuver that is so important to maintain in light of the increasingly hostile attitude of American Democrats toward Israel. Today, as a partner of the United States, Israel maintains independence in its relations with Russia and China, which is a vital interest for our country (e.g., to avoid direct military confrontations with the Russian contingent in the course of our efforts against the Iranian regime’s consolidation in Lebanon and Syria).
As far as I know, the Lubavitcher Rebbe SHLITA King Moshiach was against signing such an agreement back in the 1980s, and one of his reasons was precisely because such an alliance with the United States would deprive Israel of its freedom of maneuver in its relations with the Soviet Union.
In addition, if such an agreement had been signed in those years, Israel’s freedom of military action would have been seriously undermined already in the first Gulf War. Israel would have been forced to freeze all its plans to respond to an Iraqi missile attack. In fact, Israel did not respond, but the threat of massive retaliation in Iraq made the U.S. much more decisive in suppressing Iraqi Scud missile batteries. It goes without saying that if such an agreement had been signed, Israel would have had much less flexibility in dealing with Arab terror.
In short, signing such an agreement contains significant disadvantages associated with the loss of independence, while most of the advantages of such an agreement are already being received by Israel today, while it retains sufficient ability to safeguard its interests.