Memorandum: Why Ending U.S. Weapons Sales to Israel Would Undermine American National Security and Moral Responsibility
Subject: The Strategic, Economic, Military, and Moral Consequences of Ending American Weapons Sales to Israel
Executive Summary
The relationship between the United States and Israel provides benefits that extend well beyond Israel's own defense. Israel is a major strategic partner in one of the world's most volatile regions. The two countries cooperate on intelligence, missile defense, counterterrorism, military technology, and the development of weapons systems that have implications for American forces and American security.
Ending U.S. weapons sales to Israel would not simply deprive Israel of military equipment. It would weaken an established security partnership, reduce opportunities for technological cooperation, potentially diminish American intelligence advantages, and create opportunities for competing powers to expand their influence.
The consequences would extend to America's ability to deter Iran, protect its regional partners, maintain military superiority, and preserve its influence in the Middle East.
American military cooperation with Israel is not a one-way transaction. The United States receives substantial strategic benefits in return. Moreover, America has a moral responsibility to help a democratic ally defend itself against those who seek its destruction.
1. Intelligence and Military Cooperation
Israel possesses extensive intelligence capabilities concerning Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, regional terrorist organizations, and other threats in the Middle East.
The United States benefits from cooperation with Israeli intelligence and military organizations in several areas:
Identifying terrorist networks and their financing.
Monitoring Iranian military activities and weapons development.
Tracking missile and drone threats.
Understanding the capabilities and tactics of Iranian-backed organizations.
Sharing operational information relevant to protecting American personnel and installations.
A decision to terminate weapons sales would not automatically end intelligence cooperation. However, it could seriously damage the trust and institutional relationships on which broader security cooperation depends.
American military personnel and diplomatic facilities operate throughout the Middle East, where many of the same threats facing Israel also threaten American interests.
2. Israel Is an Important Partner in Developing American Military Technology
One of the most important and often overlooked benefits of the relationship is joint weapons development.
The United States and Israel have cooperated in developing and improving sophisticated defensive weapons systems, including:
Iron Dome: A system designed to intercept short-range rockets and other incoming threats.
David's Sling: Designed to intercept medium- and longer-range rockets and missiles.
Arrow: A system designed to intercept ballistic missiles, including threats at high altitudes.
These programs involve American investment, Israeli engineering, joint testing, and technological exchanges.
The cooperation is not merely theoretical. It provides opportunities to develop and improve technologies that can benefit American and allied missile-defense capabilities.
The United States faces growing threats from ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones, and other weapons. Technologies developed through cooperation with Israel can contribute to American security.
Ending weapons sales and disrupting the broader defense relationship could reduce opportunities for this kind of cooperation.
3. American Weapons Sales Support American Jobs and Industry
Military sales are not simply money leaving the United States.
When Israel purchases American aircraft, precision-guided munitions, helicopters, engines, and other military equipment, American defense manufacturers receive contracts.
These contracts support:
American manufacturing jobs.
Defense engineering and research.
Production facilities and skilled labor.
Economies of scale that help sustain American defense production.
Long-term relationships between American and Israeli defense companies.
The existing security-assistance agreement has directed substantial Israeli military purchases toward American manufacturers.
If Israel were prohibited from purchasing American weapons, it would have a powerful incentive to purchase more equipment from alternative suppliers or accelerate development of its own systems.
That would mean lost business for American manufacturers and potentially greater dependence by Israel on foreign defense industries.
4. Weakening Israel Could Strengthen Iran and Its Regional Partners
Israel is one of the principal military powers capable of confronting Iranian military expansion in the Middle East.
Iran supports and supplies a network of armed organizations, including Hezbollah and other militant groups. These organizations threaten Israel, but they also threaten American interests and regional stability.
American weapons enable Israel to maintain its ability to deter and respond to these threats.
If Washington were to prohibit Israel from purchasing American military equipment, Israel would have to find alternative suppliers, increase domestic production, or adjust its military capabilities.
Over time, these changes could weaken the military integration and technological advantages that currently characterize the U.S.-Israel relationship.
There is also a strategic consequence: adversaries could interpret a complete arms cutoff as evidence that the United States is less willing to support established security partners.
That perception could affect American credibility well beyond Israel.
5. An Arms Cutoff Could Surrender American Influence to Competing Powers
If the United States stopped supplying Israel with weapons, Israel would not simply stop needing weapons.
It would seek alternatives.
Potential suppliers include countries such as France, Germany, South Korea, and other defense-producing nations. Russia and China would also have an interest in exploiting any deterioration in the American-Israeli relationship, although their ability to replace American systems would be limited by existing technological and political considerations.
The consequences could include:
Reduced American influence over Israeli military procurement.
Less American leverage in discussions concerning military technology and its use.
Greater opportunities for foreign defense manufacturers.
Less integration between Israeli and American defense systems.
American influence is not maintained simply by having allies agree with Washington. It is also maintained through long-term economic, technological, intelligence, and military relationships.
Weapons sales are an important part of that relationship.
6. The Relationship Helps Maintain America's Military Advantage
Israel is an unusually sophisticated military partner. Its armed forces operate many American weapons systems, including the F-35, and participate in military training and technological cooperation.
The relationship creates opportunities for the United States to learn from Israel's operational experience, including:
The effectiveness of American weapons in actual combat environments.
The performance of missile-defense systems against real threats.
The effectiveness of drones and counter-drone technologies.
The challenges of modern urban warfare.
The integration of intelligence, surveillance, and precision weapons.
Combat experience is particularly valuable because it provides information that cannot always be obtained through laboratory testing or military exercises.
This does not mean that every Israeli operational experience automatically transfers to the American military. It does mean that the relationship offers opportunities for valuable military learning.
7. An Arms Cutoff Could Damage American Credibility With Other Allies
There is another consequence that extends beyond the Middle East.
American allies purchase American military equipment partly because they believe the United States will remain a dependable long-term supplier.
If Washington abruptly terminates weapons sales to an established security partner, other countries may begin questioning whether their own access to American weapons could be interrupted by political disagreements.
Countries in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East make enormous long-term investments in American military equipment. Those investments depend on continuing access to spare parts, maintenance, ammunition, training, and upgrades.
A complete cutoff could therefore raise questions about the reliability of American defense commitments.
This is not an argument that the United States should never restrict weapons transfers. It is an argument that restrictions should be carefully considered because they can have consequences for the broader American defense-export system.
8. There Is a Difference Between Ending Financial Assistance and Ending Weapons Sales
This distinction deserves particular attention.
Israel receives American military financing, but it also purchases American military equipment through commercial and government-to-government arrangements.
The existing 2019–2028 memorandum of understanding provides for $38 billion in assistance, subject to congressional appropriations:
$33 billion in Foreign Military Financing.
$5 billion for cooperative missile-defense programs.
It is possible to debate the amount of American financial assistance, the conditions attached to it, or the future structure of the agreement without prohibiting Israel from purchasing American weapons with its own money.
Indeed, these are different policy decisions with different consequences.
A complete prohibition on weapons purchases would go substantially further than simply reducing financial assistance.
9. American Weapons Sales Should Be Subject to Oversight, Not Abandoned Entirely
There are legitimate policy questions about American weapons transfers, particularly concerning civilian casualties, compliance with international humanitarian law, and whether particular weapons should be supplied for particular military operations.
Those questions deserve scrutiny.
The United States has laws governing arms transfers and requirements concerning the use of American-supplied weapons. It can impose restrictions, conduct reviews, and condition particular transfers.
But there is a significant difference between restricting a particular weapon or shipment because of specific concerns and terminating the entire military supply relationship.
The former can be a targeted policy instrument. The latter risks damaging a much broader strategic relationship.
A policy that preserves the ability to review individual transfers while maintaining the overall defense partnership would allow the United States to address legitimate concerns without unnecessarily sacrificing other security interests.
10. The Moral Obligation of the United States to Help Israel Defend Its Existence
Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has faced repeated threats to its very existence. Its neighbors and regional adversaries have included governments and movements that have openly called for Israel's destruction. Most notably, the Iranian regime has repeatedly threatened Israel's annihilation while financing, arming, and supporting terrorist organizations committed to that objective.
Israel is a small country with a relatively small population, situated in a region where powerful governments and militant organizations have, at various times, sought its destruction. Its citizens face continuing threats from ballistic missiles, rockets, drones, terrorism, and the possibility of regional war.
The moral obligation of the United States is not simply to stand by while Israel confronts these threats. It is to help ensure that a democratic nation facing persistent threats to its existence has the means to defend its population.
America has a particular responsibility because it has been Israel's principal security partner and has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to Israel's security.
This does not mean that Israel should be exempt from American oversight, that every military operation should receive automatic American approval, or that legitimate concerns about civilian casualties should be ignored. But there is a profound moral difference between scrutinizing how a democracy uses its weapons and denying that democracy access to the weapons necessary to protect its people.
A country whose enemies openly declare their intention to destroy it should not have to wonder whether its principal democratic ally will continue supplying the means of its survival.
The United States has both a strategic interest and a moral responsibility to ensure that Israel can defend itself. Abandoning that responsibility would represent not only a serious strategic mistake but a failure of American moral leadership.
Conclusion: It Is in America's Interest to Maintain Its Military Relationship With Israel
The United States should evaluate its military relationship with Israel through the same strategic lens it uses when evaluating other important alliances.
Israel is not simply a country that receives American weapons. It is a military and technological partner whose intelligence capabilities, battlefield experience, defense research, and regional position offer advantages to the United States.
A complete cutoff of American weapons sales would risk:
Weakening a significant regional security partnership.
Disrupting joint development of advanced military technology.
Reducing opportunities for intelligence and military cooperation.
Transferring defense business and technological opportunities to foreign competitors.
Creating openings for Iran and other American adversaries.
Weakening American military advantages and interoperability.
Undermining confidence in American security commitments.
Sacrificing the economic and industrial benefits of defense cooperation.
Eliminating an important instrument of American strategic influence.
Abandoning a moral responsibility to help a democratic ally defend its existence.
The fundamental question is not whether the United States should have the right to determine how its weapons are used. Of course it should. The question is whether eliminating an important military relationship serves American national security or advances American moral leadership.
There is a strong strategic and moral case for maintaining the ability to sell American weapons to Israel while retaining American oversight and the authority to restrict particular transfers when circumstances warrant.
America should continue selling weapons to Israel not merely because it is in America's interest, but because it is strategically wise, morally defensible, and consistent with America's responsibility to stand with a democratic ally whose very existence remains threatened.
