The myth of Israeli self-reliance

Israel cannot do without the USA

Benjamin Netanyahu's recent declaration that Israel must eventually free itself from dependence on US military aid sounded, at first glance, like an assertion of national self-confidence. Nations, after all, prefer autonomy to dependence. Great powers do not enjoy admitting that their security rests in another country's hands.

But there is a difference between aspiration and reality.

The reality is that modern Israel, as a military and diplomatic power, is inconceivable without the USA. This is not a moral judgment or a political slogan. It is a strategic fact.

For decades, Israel has cultivated an image of self-reliance. The story of a tiny nation surrounded by hostile neighbours, defending itself through ingenuity and determination, has become part of modern political mythology. There is truth in that narrative. Israel possesses one of the world's most sophisticated intelligence services, a formidable defence industry, and a military that has repeatedly demonstrated operational excellence.

Yet military capability is not the same as strategic independence. Strip away US support, and the architecture of Israeli power begins to look remarkably fragile.

The numbers tell part of the story. Since the 1970s, the USA has provided Israel with well over $150 billion in assistance, making it one of the largest recipients of American foreign aid in history. Today, Washington supplies approximately $3.8 billion annually in military assistance, not including supplemental packages that have surged since the Hamas attacks of October 2023.

The aid itself is only the visible layer of a much deeper relationship. Israel's most advanced weapons systems are intertwined with American technology. The celebrated F-35 fighter jets that form the backbone of Israel's air superiority rely heavily on US maintenance, spare parts and software support. Analysts have estimated that, without access to US spare parts, Israel's fleet could begin facing operational constraints within a matter of weeks.

Wars are not won merely by possessing weapons. They are won by sustaining them. This is where dependence becomes glaring. Israel can certainly defend itself for a period of time without Washington. It has substantial stockpiles, a capable domestic arms industry and, by all accounts, a nuclear deterrent. It can launch strikes, intercept missiles and protect its territory. But can it sustain simultaneous campaigns in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and potentially Iran without American support? The answer is almost certainly no.

Israel is not merely supported by the USA. To a significant extent, the modern strategic posture of Israel has been built upon the USA. And empires, history reminds us, often discover their limitations only when the patron that sustained them begins to hesitate.

The recent wars in the Middle East have demonstrated this reality. Following the October 2023 attacks, the USA reportedly sent tens of thousands of tons of military equipment and munitions to Israel. American naval deployments in the eastern Mediterranean acted as a deterrent against wider regional escalation. US intelligence cooperation remained indispensable.

Israel's military prowess was not operating in isolation. It was operating under a US umbrella. There is an even deeper dimension to this dependence. Diplomatic protection.

At the United Nations, Washington has repeatedly exercised its veto power to shield Israel from resolutions that could have resulted in sanctions or international isolation. The USA has spent decades constructing a political environment in which Israel can exercise military force with far fewer consequences than most countries would face.

Imagine, for a moment, a Middle East in which this diplomatic shield disappears. International investigations would intensify. Economic pressure would mount. Arms restrictions could become a realistic possibility. European governments, already increasingly uncomfortable with Israel's conduct in Gaza, might adopt much tougher positions.

Israel would not suddenly cease to exist. But it would become a significantly more constrained state.

The late Israeli strategist Charles Freilich once argued that the USA is not simply an ally of Israel; it has become an integral component of Israel's deterrence system. Israel's adversaries calculate not only Israeli capabilities but also the possibility of US intervention.

That observation deserves careful consideration. Iran does not merely confront Israel. Iran confronts Israel plus America. Hezbollah does not merely calculate the risks of fighting the Israeli military. It calculates the possibility that a regional war could bring US forces into the equation.

Remove the US factor, and the strategic calculus throughout the Middle East changes dramatically. This raises an uncomfortable question: has Israel become too dependent on US power? The answer appears to be yes.

Ironically, this dependence has also encouraged some of Israel's more ambitious policies. Knowing that the USA would likely provide emergency military resupply and diplomatic protection has created a sense of strategic insulation. Critics argue that this has enabled policies that might otherwise have been deemed too risky.

Even some US analysts now suggest that Israel's ability to pursue prolonged military campaigns rests partly on an assumption that Washington will ultimately absorb much of the political and strategic cost.

History offers numerous examples of allies becoming overconfident because they believed a stronger patron would always stand behind them. The South Vietnamese government believed it would enjoy indefinite US backing. The Afghan government made similar assumptions. Even European colonial powers in the post-war era often miscalculated because they expected Washington's unconditional support.

Dependence can create strategic complacency. Israel may not be comparable to these cases in many respects, but the principle remains relevant. Nations that become accustomed to external guarantees often overestimate their own freedom of action. This perhaps explains Netanyahu's recent rhetoric.

His call for greater military independence may not represent a realistic plan but rather an acknowledgement of an uncomfortable truth: no country wants its national security to depend entirely on the political moods of another nation's voters. American politics is changing.

Younger Americans are increasingly sceptical of unconditional support for Israel. Public opinion polls reveal widening partisan divisions. Calls to restrict arms transfers are no longer confined to the political fringes. The assumption that American support is permanent now appears less certain than it once did. This is precisely why Israeli leaders are worried.

For all its remarkable achievements, Israel remains a relatively small country of fewer than ten million people located in one of the world's most volatile regions. It lacks the economic scale, industrial depth and strategic geography of a superpower.

Its extraordinary military capabilities have been built in partnership with the USA, not independently of it. Can Israel survive without it? Yes. Can it defend itself in the short term without it? Certainly. Can it continue to fight prolonged wars on multiple fronts, maintain regional military dominance and enjoy near-total diplomatic protection without US support? Almost certainly not.

That is the distinction that often disappears in political debate. The more accurate question is not whether Israel can exist without the USA. It can.

The real question is whether Israel can remain the kind of Israel that the world has known for the past half-century without US power standing behind it. On that question, the evidence points in only one direction.

Israel is not merely supported by the USA. To a significant extent, the modern strategic posture of Israel has been built upon the USA. And empires, history reminds us, often discover their limitations only when the patron that sustained them begins to hesitate.