Israel acts as a forward laboratory of modern warfare in hardware, tactics, and doctrine, and the United States turns those lessons into a global capability.
By Lenny Ben-David
Progressive Members of Congress, backed by the self-described “pro-Israel” group J Street, are calling to “fundamentally reassess” the U.S.-Israel security relationship. They introduced resolutions to block transfers of heavy munitions and engineering equipment, citing concerns about Israel’s conduct in war. Some go further, proposing a phase-out of U.S. military assistance, including support for missile defense systems such as Iron Dome, which they suggest could be sold to Israel instead.
This argument assumes that Israel is primarily a dependent recipient of American support. That assumption is wrong—and increasingly detached from reality.
The U.S.-Israel security relationship has evolved into a two-way strategic partnership, in which both sides contribute capabilities that the other lacks. In several critical areas, the United States is not the benefactor but the beneficiary.
The recent conflict with Iran makes that clear. American and Israeli forces did not operate as parallel allies. They operated as a combined system—sharing intelligence, coordinating targeting, and integrating air and missile defenses. The extensive deployment of F-35 fighter jets by the United States and Israel underscores Israel’s fleet enhancement and its sharing of specifications with the aircraft’s American engineers and operators.
Israeli-developed systems such as the Iron Dome, Arrow, and David’s Sling missile systems functioned alongside U.S. platforms, intercepting missile barrages that would otherwise have overwhelmed defenses.
This level of integration didn’t emerge overnight. It is the product of decades of cooperation—and of Israeli innovation that has quietly reshaped U.S. military capabilities and doctrines.
Consider armored warfare. For years, the U.S. Army relied on heavier armor to protect its tanks from anti-tank missiles. Israel, facing constant exposure to such threats, took a different approach. It developed the Trophy system, which detects and destroys incoming projectiles before they reach the target.
The U.S. Army now fields Trophy on its M1 Abrams tanks. This is more than an upgrade. It marks a shift from passive to active defense—the most significant change in tank survivability in decades. Without it, American armored units would remain vulnerable to the very weapons proliferating across modern battlefields.
The pattern repeats elsewhere. Israeli systems, such as the Spike missile, introduced real-time, operator-guided precision strikes at the tactical level for use by attack helicopters or infantry. U.S. forces have adopted versions of this capability, but more importantly, they have absorbed the concept. Small units can now deliver precision effects at ranges of 25 km, once reserved for aircraft or artillery.
Enemy tunnels have plagued U.S. warriors for decades, from Vietnam to Korea. Israel’s defense and combat against Hizbullah and Hamas tunnels are studied today in American military academies, and joint defense systems are being developed. The United States–Israel Anti-Tunnel Cooperation Enhancement Act authorizes $80 million annually, with the Israeli government matching funding.
In unmanned warfare, Israel again moved first. Long before drones became central to modern conflict, Israeli forces normalized persistent surveillance and rapid “sensor-to-shooter” targeting cycles. Israeli platforms such as the IAI Heron and Elbit Hermes 450 helped define a model that the U.S. military later expanded globally. What transferred was not just hardware, but a doctrine: the battlefield is continuously observed, mapped, and targetable.
The Israel Defense Forces and Israeli defense industries have led the world in the deployment of loitering munitions, such as the IAI Harpy and Harop — “kamikaze drones” that loiter like a drone and strike like a missile.
Israel’s experience in dense urban environments has produced new breaching tactics, the integration of small UAVs at the squad level, rapid fielding of IED jammers, and the introduction of new weaponry such as “cornershot.”
Even beyond weapons systems, Israeli influence is evident. The so-called Israeli bandage—now standard in U.S. military and civilian trauma kits—reflects a broader emphasis on rapid hemorrhage control. Israeli practice helped accelerate the U.S. military’s adoption of tourniquet use at the individual soldier level, a shift credited with reducing preventable deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bandage even saved the life of a congressional colleague. It is credited with helping save the life of former U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords after she was shot in the head during a constituent meeting in Tucson, Arizona, in January 2011.
And, of course, Missile Defense
Missile defense cooperation tells a similar story. The U.S. helped fund systems like Iron Dome, but it also co-produces interceptors (in American plants) and incorporates lessons from their use. These are joint programs, not one-way transfers. American forces benefit from technologies and operational experience developed under conditions of constant threat that the U.S. itself rarely faces.
The next phase of this partnership is already taking shape in directed-energy systems such as Iron Beam. Unlike traditional interceptors, lasers offer near-zero cost per shot and the ability to counter large volumes of rockets and drones. The U.S. is pursuing similar technologies, and cooperation with Israel is likely to accelerate their deployment.
Critics who call for scaling back the relationship focus narrowly on what the United States provides Israel. They ignore what the United States receives in return: access to rapidly developed, combat-proven solutions to emerging threats.
Israel operates under conditions that force constant adaptation. It encounters challenges—mass rocket fire, dense urban combat, short-range missile threats—well before they become central concerns for U.S. planners. The solutions it develops are not theoretical. They are tested in real time.
The United States, in turn, can scale those solutions, integrate them across services, and deploy them globally. The relationship works because each side supplies what the other lacks.
Sanders and J Street also seek to weaken the U.S.
Reducing that relationship to a question of aid misses the point. The issue is not whether Israel can afford to purchase American systems. It is whether the United States is willing to weaken a partnership that enhances its own military effectiveness.
Calls to curtail cooperation are framed as moral or political corrections. In practice, they would amount to a strategic retreat—from a partnership that has consistently delivered operational advantages.
The U.S.-Israel security relationship is not charity. It is a mutually reinforcing alliance, shaped by shared threats and sustained by practical results.
Treating Israel as a client rather than a partner doesn’t just misread the relationship; it undermines it. It risks undermining one of the most effective channels through which the United States adapts to the changing character of war.
What a disgrace for regressive Leftist "Jewish" Congress members to demand a reassessment of cooperation between 🇺🇸 and 🇮🇱 and curtail the sale of military hardware and ammunition to an ally.
81 years after the Holocaust and there still are "Jews", who fear the existence of a Jewish State to such a degree, that they demand Congress to block sales to Israel 🇮🇱.
What a Hutzpah to claim to be "pro-Israel"!