US Congress wants to expand military ties with Israel: Why it matters | War Stories

Lawmakers in the United States are quietly advancing a proposal that could deepen military ties between them US and Israel in unprecedented ways, at a time when public support for Israel among the American public is eroding.

Among the provisions included in the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) released this week is Section 224, “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative”.

Recommended Articles

list of 4 itemsend of series

The NDAA, which Congress passes every year to establish military policy and authorize defense spending, will undergo further revisions and changes before it becomes law. Some MPs have already signed up to protest, with MP Thomas Massie saying he wants to remove the bill when it reaches the House.

The measure is still in the works, but experts say if it passes, it could reduce political oversight of the defense industry.

Analysts added that it could signal a major shift in US-Israeli relations, moving beyond the model of supporting the American military to closer cooperation between the two countries’ defense industries and the military.

Critics say such a move would make support for Israel less of a political issue and part of the US national security agenda, setting up a relationship between military and industrial programs that would be difficult to sever.

What does this request include?

Section 224 includes the US-Israel Future of Warfare Act introduced by Representative Ronny Jackson, according to Track AIPAC. Although the legislation did not advance as a standing bill, key elements of it were incorporated into the NDAA.

The bill would require the United States secretary of defense to appoint someone to oversee military cooperation between the two countries. According to the document, the official will be tasked with “coordinating the cooperation between the United States and Israel”, including “bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration and industrial cooperation”.

The order calls for cooperation between different types of military technology. It identifies key areas; “Unmanned systems combining air, sea and ground platforms”, “anti-tunneling and underground threats”, and “aircraft and missile defense technologies”.

The initiative also seeks to expand cooperation on emerging technologies, including “artificial intelligence, quantum machine learning and autonomous systems”, as well as “advanced energy and advanced cognition”, “cyber security, electronic warfare and digital resilience”, and “biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and medical security”.

The combination of “network integration” and “data fusion” has been very interesting because it shows a great integration of military systems between the two countries.

The United States and Israel already cooperate on defense projects, including missile defense systems such as Iron Dome. However, experts say that Section 224 will expand cooperation in every major area of ​​military technology, and could create a “blockade” between the two countries’ armed forces.

Mark Hilborne, senior lecturer, School of Security Studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera that the request continues on the terms of the US-Israeli security relationship.

“While historically, the US-Israeli defense relationship has included US military assistance and arms transfers, joint missile defense programs such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow, as well as intelligence and operational cooperation, the proposed agreement expands the partnership to include a broader range of technologies,” he said.

“So all of this shows very strong integration – less about providing and sharing technologies and capabilities, and more about doing this together.

“It would point to a stable relationship, and perhaps one that would survive a change of administration in the US, because some of the development activities would be very long-term and could be stable,” he said.

Why is it contradictory?

The decision comes amid growing controversy over US military aid to Israel, particularly as Israel’s deadly war in Gaza continues, and growing concern over the use of US-made weapons.

Human rights organizations and United Nations experts have repeatedly complained about the actions of the Israeli army in Gaza, where despite the so-called end of the war since last October, at least 850 Palestinians have been killed. Israel is also moving into southern Lebanon, where it has killed more than 3,000 people since early March.

These wars have created a deep reluctance among Americans to support Israel unconditionally, a recent poll shows.

A New York Times poll in May found that only 30 percent of respondents believed Donald Trump made the right decision in ordering the military to attack Iran, while 64 percent said it was the wrong decision.

An Institute for Global Affairs poll released last week found that only 16 percent of Americans support transferring arms to Israel without restrictions. Thirty-eight percent said the US should stop giving weapons altogether, while 24 percent said military aid should be based on how the weapons are used.

Opposition has also emerged from within the Republican Party, which has traditionally been aligned with Israel.

Former representative Marjorie Taylor Greene criticized the decision on television, writing: “This is what it looks like to be completely captured by a foreign government, and not a single shot has been fired.”

Massie, who has opposed military aid to Israel, has also promised to introduce an amendment to repeal the NDAA. The Republican senator was defeated in the primary election last month, demonstrating the economic and political power of Israel’s lobbying groups in the US.

Prominent commentator Tucker Carlson has been critical of US aid to Israel, highlighting divisions within the main MAGA movement. Criticism has also grown among left-wing Democrats, with many calling for a freeze on military aid to Israel.

What would it mean in practice?

Opponents warn that this idea could create a “lock-in” situation that makes both countries simultaneously dependent on each other for military development and procurement.

Some experts say such a merger would move key aspects of the US-Israel relationship away from more transparent votes or trade deals, and into the less transparent world of defense and industrial cooperation at the state-to-state level.

Hilborne of King’s College said this could also have direct consequences for the Palestinian people. “If the R & D partnership creates more technology, then systems related to surveillance, autonomous vehicles, AI and targeting, and various anti-drone or counter-missile technology will be developed, giving strength to the Israeli army operating in Gaza or the West Bank,” he said.

“This increased integration would bring US technology to the Israeli military. This would be a concern from the Palestinian perspective.”

Critics also point to the economic implications, where the expansion of the cooperation agreement would create new manufacturing facilities and defense services in the United States, and create further dependence on Israel.

Hilborne also suggested that deeper integration would reduce Washington’s influence over Israel. “Deep integration would also mean that the US would lose some power over Israel, because it would not be able to prevent some power from Israel,” he said.

“As a result, Israel can be bolder in its policies.”

The proposal could also have implications beyond US-Israel relations, according to Imad Salamey, a professor of international relations at the Lebanese American University. “US-Israeli security cooperation can be seen as the next phase of the Abrahamic Alliance: from traditional to a US-backed regional security regime that looks at Israel as a military and technological center,” he told Al Jazeera.

Such a plan would strengthen efforts to contain Iran, reduce Turkey’s independent influence and expand security cooperation with its Arab partners, he said.

“For Lebanon and Gaza, it could mean greater pressure to cooperate with an Israeli-led defense as part of an emerging Middle East order.”

It is not clear whether Section 224 will survive the legislation.

But its inclusion in the NDAA shows how some politicians, many with the support of Israel’s advocacy group AIPAC, are trying to bind the two countries’ military forces together, creating a long-term corporate nexus that future administrations may struggle to reverse.