Why ‘US Aid to Israel’ is a Myth

 Full article at https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-891150

The full strategic consequences of the conflict with Iran remain to be seen. What has already emerged, however, is a clearer picture of the US-Israel alliance: not a one-sided act of American benevolence or an emergency rescue mission, but a deepening strategic partnership shaped by shared interests, joint capabilities, and mutual benefit. That is exactly why the habitual phrase “aid to Israel” is so misleading.te

Israel is America’s cost-effective strategic ally

One conclusion was unmistakable: calling the US-Israel security framework “aid” is inaccurate, and it hands skeptics an easy talking point, as though this relationship cannot be equated with America First. 

In reality, the arrangement functions as a strategic exchange that advances American interests, strengthens American industry, and reduces the need for costlier US R&D and military exposure.

Every few months, Washington relitigates “US aid to Israel,” as though it were a discretionary act of charity, a foreign transfer sustained primarily by sentiment. That framing is politically unhelpful and descriptively wrong. The word “aid” implies a one-way relationship, dependency, and benevolence unconnected to the donor’s concrete interests. It invites the predictable question: Why are we paying for someone else’s security when Americans have needs at home? It is the wrong framework for a security architecture designed to protect American interests, strengthen American production, and reduce the likelihood of direct American military exposure.

If the United States wants a clearer debate, it should change the terminology. Call it what it functionally is: a US-Israel security exchange, a strategic defense partnership, or an allied capability investment. The label matters because the arrangement itself is not structured as a cash gift, and the returns are not abstract.

Begin with the legal and financial structure. The 2016 memorandum of understanding established a 10-year framework totaling $38 billion, comprising $3.3b. annually in Foreign Military financing and $500 million annually for missile defense cooperation. 

This is a financing mechanism tied to procurement of US services, and production connected to American defense systems and American firms, it is NOT general budget support. A significant portion of what is commonly called “aid” functions as sustained demand for US manufacturing and supply chains, supporting the American defense industrial base.

That is the industrial dimension. There is also the strategic dimension, which is more consequential. In a region that repeatedly generates global shocks, the United States has two basic options: deploy major US assets forward, or rely on capable allies who carry the operational burden locally while remaining interoperable with US systems. The first option is slow to surge, expensive to sustain, and puts Americans in harm’s way.

Effectively, Israel’s continuous present, fully engaged allied force in the region substitutes for that kind of US forward deployment. A “USS Israel” American aircraft carrier, so to speak. And unlike an actual carrier strike group, whose annual operating costs run into the billions of dollars, Israel delivers that strategic presence at a fraction of the cost while placing no American sailors or pilots in the line of fire.

This is a strategic, practical, cost-saving measure that is anything but charity, which is wholly not captured by the term “aid.” It obscures reciprocity and, in doing so, undermines the durability of public support. Labels become shorthand, shorthand becomes perception, and perception becomes policy. When the label is wrong, the coalition built on it becomes fragile.

All of this was true even before the war with Iran. But the recent US-Israel coordination in confronting Iran has made the point even harder to ignore. When set against the cold shoulder and strategic impotence shown by older allies, whose defense Washington underwrites at far greater cost each year within the NATO framework, the value proposition of the US-Israel partnership comes into even sharper focus. 

Far from being a burden on America, Israel is one of the most cost-effective strategic investments the United States makes anywhere in the world.

Ben Gurion Airport under fire: ‘No airport has operated like this under war conditions’

 Full article at https://www.ynetnews.com/travel/article/bydhuviqzg#autoplay

On Saturday morning, February 28, Operation Roaring Lion began, and Israel’s skies shut down once again, as they had during the earlier Operation Rising Lion. With the outbreak of that war, about 80 aircraft parked at Ben Gurion Airport had to be evacuated immediately.

This time, however, lessons from the previous round meant contingency plans were already in place, including a structured framework to keep the airport operating under attack, subject to Home Front Command guidelines, the Civil Aviation Authority and security officials.

To see how that plan works in practice, we joined a special tour of the airport on Sunday, as it continued operating under missile fire and repeated alerts.

The tour began with a descent into a protected shelter. This was not a drill. Phones around us blared with the harsh alert tone as a real siren sounded. A glance at the Flightradar app showed an Air Haifa flight from Larnaca circling in the air, delayed before landing, a routine procedure since the start of the rescue effort.

In the operations control room overseeing the “Open Skies” mission, another situation assessment was underway despite ongoing missile launches, with all relevant agencies present. Listening to the briefings, we learned that a missile fired from Iran toward central Israel had been successfully intercepted.

At the same time, standard protocol kicked in. Specialized runway vehicles, known as “carpets,” scanned takeoff and landing strips for debris and metal fragments from the interception. They collected the shrapnel and cleared the runways thoroughly.

Moments later, we were informed of another missile launched toward Eilat. The intensity underscored the challenge facing crews working around the clock in what may be one of the most complex operations ever managed in civil aviation. Only after the runways were fully cleared did operations resume, with landings and takeoffs restarting under strict limitations. View gallery

A passenger’s path: From Hall G to Gate C

What does flying from Ben Gurion look like in wartime? Departing passengers check in and undergo security screening in Hall G, not the usual departures hall. The reason is proximity to shelters, allowing up to 1,500 people to be evacuated quickly if needed.

After check-in and security, passengers proceed through border control and head to Concourse C, where they wait at the gate. Only one café is open, along with a small duty-free shop across from it.

On the tarmac, just one commercial concourse is active. At the time of our visit, two aircraft were preparing for departure, one from Israir already pushed back toward the runway, and another from Arkia still boarding.

Otherwise, the airport was nearly empty of commercial planes. Aircraft do not remain parked here; they land, take off and clear the area quickly. Much of the airfield is now dedicated to U.S. aerial refueling planes operating around the clock, giving the airport the feel of an American military base.

The next stop on the tour was the duty-free zone. “It’s not pleasant to see everything closed,” Kedmi said. “But Ben Gurion airport, operating under war conditions and missile fire from Iran and Hezbollah, is functioning in an unprecedented way. No airport in the world has maintained inbound and outbound flights under such intense fighting.”

"The airport is operating under a strict capacity cap of 2,300 people at any given time to ensure rapid evacuation if needed. It’s not worth risking even one passenger’s life for a flight,” Kedmi said.

At that moment another alert sounded for missiles fired toward central Israel. Staff immediately sprang into action, calmly and efficiently directing passengers in the hall toward the protected shelters.

“This is why the framework allows a maximum of 100 passengers on narrow-body aircraft and no more than two flights per hour, both departures and arrivals,” Bar-Oz explained. “What allows us to reopen the skies for such a complex operation starts with protecting human life, without taking unnecessary risks.”

"Everything is tightly scheduled. Boarding takes about 20 minutes, and each flight cycle is calculated at roughly half an hour. At peak, the airport is handling about 1,000 passengers per hour.

The tour concluded at the control tower, in the radar room beneath the glass cab above. There, Deputy Director of Operations Assi Ben-Michael gave a detailed briefing on the radar units, approach control and area control.

“Air traffic management has several moving parts, and this is one of them,” he said, without going into detail. “In practice, aircraft control is handled from here. We are fully coordinated with the Air Force under very strict procedures. The complexity is high, because alongside passenger and cargo flights, a fleet of U.S. refueling aircraft is also operating, and the goal is to keep planes on the ground for as little time as possible.”

He noted that managing air traffic during wartime is fundamentally different. "In normal times, efficiency comes right after safety. Now, after safety the priority is operational coordination, especially those of the Air Force, so we can operate without interfering with them. It’s a major challenge, particularly since we sometimes have to move into protected shelters, while continuing to manage traffic and communicate with aircraft."

"The most challenging moments come when many aircraft are in the air and on the ground simultaneously, especially with heavy activity from U.S. refueling planes. During an alert, we still have to manage the airspace, and it can reach very intense peaks. We maintain continuous communication with aircraft, factoring in each plane’s fuel levels while keeping safety above all else.

To enable the effort, the head of the Home Front Command approved an exception to standard protection policies at Terminal 3, allowing up to 2,300 people to be present at the same time, including about 800 airport staff.

‘We’re not scared’: Jerusalem carries on amid war

By Ezra Lev Cohen 

Despite the disruptions to daily life, Israelis are proud of their country’s accomplishments so far and are making the most of their time.

It’s Wednesday afternoon, and the war with Iran is continuing. But in Jerusalem’s iconic outdoor Mahane Yehuda market, signs of conflict are absent. Fewer shoppers crowd the main area of the shuk, and fewer car horns can be heard, but overall, life is strangely normal.

Erez Yitzhakov lounges outside a fruit stand, a dog on his lap, sunglasses on his face; he’s the image of relaxation. “We’re not scared,” he tells The Press Service of Israel.

“We have shelters, we go to the shelters for ten minutes, go out, and life goes on the same.”

“To be honest, it’s normal for us,” echoes Efie Ohana, an Israeli who has seen multiple wars wrack the country in his lifetime.

Not everyone is so calm, however, and many find the changes to daily life disruptive.

“I was sleeping, and I woke up to a giant boom, and it really scared me,” says Chaya Adelkopf, who recently arrived in Israel from the United States.

She recounts being “very cautious” during the war’s first few days until the daily missile attacks and trips to the shelter began to feel normal. “Even if it’s dangerous and it’s crazy, these are our normal days now,” she says.

Still, others note that Jerusalem has lost some of its bustle. “You can feel that here, in Shuk Mahane Yehuda,” Ohana explains.

“Normally we have more traffic, but now it’s like this,” he says, gesturing at the smaller-than-normal crowds.

“At night, walking down the streets, it’s emptier than usual,” adds Adelkopf.

Despite these disruptions to daily life, Israelis are proud of their country’s accomplishments so far and are making the most of their time.

Mendel, who goes by the nickname ‘The Street Jew,’ shares a lesson he learned from a man he met during the recent Purim holiday.

“[The man] drank a very substantial amount of alcohol, and we hear the sirens, and he says, ‘Who cares about the sirens, Messiah is coming!’ and he starts dancing in the streets like a drunk guy,” Mendel says. “We all need a little bit of that belief.”

“We are still happy, Am Yisrael Chai [the nation of Israel lives],” Ohana says.

Petting his dog with one hand and making a victorious fist with the other, Yitzhakov is confident in the war effort: “Israelis are strong people,” he says.

Gulf states opposed war with Iran. Most now pushing to keep fighting

 For full article go to https://tinyurl.com/4h9xn8mw

 While Gulf countries cautioned US President Donald Trump not to launch a war against Iran in the runup to the conflict, most of them are now urging Washington to continue striking the regime, stated four senior officials representing different Gulf capitals.

There is still some frustration with the way the US and Israel are prosecuting the war, but there is a desire among Gulf countries — particularly the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar — to ensure that Iran comes out of this war with its military power sufficiently degraded to cease posing a threat to them.

While Trump has repeatedly expressed surprise over Iran’s decision to retaliate against its neighbors, including by targeting civilian sites, one of the officials said that Gulf countries largely anticipated the response and that this was one of the reasons they opposed the US-Israeli launch of the war.

“There was also serious doubt that military strikes would have the desired effect of ending Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region,” the senior Gulf diplomat said, explaining that the consensus in the region had been that continued pursuit of a diplomatic off-ramp was a surer way to maintain security in the Gulf.

But the US and Israel spurned that view, launching operations Epic Fury and Roaring Lion, respectively, on the grounds that only preemptive military action could address Iran’s nuclear aspirations and its rapidly expanding ballistic missile capabilities.

Iran responded by not only targeting those attacking it, but also by launching repeated strikes against all six Gulf Cooperation Council countries — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The attacks have killed several people and disrupted oil and gas production as well as tourism, both of which are important economic lifelines for the region.

Iran is thought to have calculated that the strikes would lead to the Gulf pressuring Trump for a ceasefire. Instead, the move seems to have had the opposite effect, with Gulf countries experiencing firsthand the danger inherent in allowing Iran to remain an armed regional menace.

“Ending the war with Iran still in possession of the tools it is currently using to target the GCC would be a strategic disaster,” a second Gulf official said.

All four officials agreed that the US and Israeli strikes were unlikely to bring down Iran’s regime. However, they differed on how much the Islamic Republic’s military needed to be degraded to void Tehran’s ability to pose a threat.

“We want this war to end with Iran stripped of the capabilities to harm its neighbors,” the third Gulf official said.

The second Gulf official was more specific, insisting that the war continue until Iran’s missile and drone manufacturing sites are destroyed.

All four officials agreed that the primary target of Gulf anger is Iran, for using the American and Israeli strikes as an excuse to attack them, rather than the US and Israel for launching the war.

While both the UAE and Bahrain have indicated that the war will help tighten ties with Israel, the Gulf officials largely rejected speculation that it would also lead to new Arab normalization deals under the Abraham Accords.

 

Day 18 Roaring Lion - General Update

 The IDF announced this morning that it has expanded its ground operations in southern Lebanon.

• Three divisions are now operating in southern Lebanon, with more expected to join them.

• The IDF says it has struck about 1,000 Hezbollah targets since the start of the war, and has eliminated around 400 Hezbollah operatives.

• The IDF continues to carry out a large scale attacks against Iranian regime infrastructure targets in Tehran and other parts of the country. Yesterday, the IDF struck 200 targets across western and central Iran. The focus continues to be the further degrading of ballistic missiles array and other military targets.  

• IDF Spokesperson Brig. Gen. Defrin told the Israeli public, “Our achievements are greater than we expected. The opening strike was very successful and consequently, so are our other attacks that have hit the Iranian regime. And we are intensifying the blow. Every day, the achievement increases and intensifies. And as a result, this is destabilising this regime. That is the reality. We are ahead of schedule.”

• Despite a relative decrease in Iranian attacks over the weekend, missile fire from Iran was resumed Sunday night. Air raid sirens were activated twice in Beer Sheva and its environs, in the Dead Sea area and in the Gaza periphery. No casualties were reported.

• In parallel Hezbollah continues its more intensive but short range attacks against northern Israel.  

 

As the war enters its third week, both US and Israeli officials sound upbeat at the military  achievements to date.

• The  tight US – Israel military cooperation continues with a  clear division of labour. Each military is carrying out their attacks in different strike zones, but with a shared intelligence target bank. Each sides has senior liaison officers in each other’s headquarters whilst a special intelligence team operates in Israel, feeds targets in real time to both militaries.  

• According to the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate, the Israel Air Force has so far destroyed 100 Iranian anti aircraft batteries and another 120 radars, providing it with absolute air superiority. Seventy percent of Iran’s missile launchers have been either destroyed, decommissioned or buried out of reach inside tunnels.

• Military intelligence now assesses that Iran’s missile production has dropped to zero, but ongoing attacks are needed to prevent the Iranians from trying to resume production. Moreover, the volume of missile fire on Israel needs to be reduced further.

• Rumours circulated over the weekend that the IDF is running out of interceptor missiles, based on areport on the US website Semafor, that claimed Israel informed the US that it suffers from a severe shortage in missiles used to intercept ballistic missiles. This led the IDF to issue a statement, “As of now, there is no interceptor shortage. The IDF prepared for prolonged combat. We are continuously monitoring the situation.” In addition it was cleared for publication that Israel’s cabinet approved allocating NIS 2.6 billion (£626m) for further purchases for the war.

• There are initial signs of diplomatic efforts to bring the war to an end.  Most significantly regarding Lebanon. Former Minister Dermer is once more serving as an envoy for the Prime Minister. Over the weekend he visited Saudi Arabia to discuss a peace initiative between Israel and Lebanon for after the fighting is over. One initiative aims to turn Hezbollah into a political movement without any military capabilities. The Lebanese government, the White House and the French are all party to the talks.

 

Two more IDF divisions are expected to join operations in southern Lebanon in the next few days.

• European Union foreign ministers will discuss a potential ⁠widening of ⁠the EU Aspides naval mission to the Strait of Hormuz. The report in the Financial Times suggested that an EU-UN joint naval mission to ensure ⁠safe passage "seems more likely" than EU countries approaching ⁠Iran bilaterally.

• Israel and the US have approved operational plans for the next three weeks. The plan is to destroy all of the Iranian regime’s components and capabilities. The IDF announced this morning that it has expanded its ground operations in southern Lebanon.

In 12 Days, the World Has Become Safer

by Farley Weiss March 11, 2026 

The only front of the war not being won by Israel and the United States is the public-relations battle. 

Some of the best arguments are not being made in a cogent, succinct manner. The launching of the war against Iran was done because the regime led by mullahs was producing missiles at an astronomical clip of 100 a month and headed toward several hundred a month. And that would mean Israel would suffer massive casualties if and when Iran was to once again launch those missiles. 

At the same time, Iran still had 460 kilograms of enriched uranium—enough for 11 nuclear bombs. It was reportedly planning to finish manufacturing the bombs in a new facility further underground so U.S. bombers couldn’t reach it. While Iran’s defenses were weakened last summer in Israel’s 12-day war, the country had maintained weapons for future use. And it made clear at the negotiating table that it had no plans on negotiating away its nuclear or ballistic-missile programs.

It appears that the world has forgotten the night of April 13-14, 2024, when Iran directly attacked Israel with more than 300 drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. It did this after financing and supporting the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and the Oct. 8, 2024 attacks by Hezbollah in northern Israel.

After Israel acquiesced to the Biden administration pressure to respond tepidly to the barrage, an emboldened Iran launched a second attack on Israel on civilian targets of about 200 missiles on Oct. 1, 2024. Backed financially and militarily by Tehran, the Hamas and Hezbollah attacks were efforts to further their repeated goal to destroy Israel.

During negotiations with Iran, which were led by U.S. special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Iranian negotiators told the U.S. representatives that Iran had 460 kilograms of uranium enriched at 60%, which is a small step of one week to 10 days to 90% enrichment, which makes it usable for a nuclear weapon. Its goal was to be able to make nuclear bombs, and with their ballistic-missile arsenal, make it too cost-prohibitive for any country to stop them militarily. They also made it clear to Witkoff and Kushner what the United States did not destroy in “Operation Midnight Hammer” last June. In short, they were not going to give up their nuclear-enriched fuel and their pathway to a weapon via talks.  

The consistent policy of every U.S. president was that Iran—as the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world—was not going to be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. But leader after leader hedged. Former President Barack Obama wrongly predicted that with the money Iran would receive from sanctions relief after making the nuclear deal he negotiated in 2015, Iran would use it for its people, and not fund terror and ballistic missiles. 

In his first term, U.S. President Donald Trump understood the disaster of that deal, which would have ended nuclear enrichment restrictions by 2030. He withdrew from it in 2018 and started a “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran. As a result, Iran’s currency reserves plummeted. 

The Biden administration eased sanctions on Iran, despite Iran’s continuation of its enrichment of uranium, and the financing of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. He went back to the negotiating table, wasting valuable time in talks while Iran went to work on nukes. Then came Oct. 7. 

In his second term, Trump tried to reinstate a “maximum pressure” campaign of sanctions against Iran and even joined Israel’s 12-day war last summer. On June 21, 2025, the U.S. bombed three of Iran’s nuclear sites, though it was obvious that Iran was not deterred in its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The mass rallies undertaken by its citizens earlier this year led the government to massacre between 30,000 and 40,000 of its own people, wounding some 200,000 others.

Trump understood that there was no possibility of a negotiated solution that would prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear bombs. Iran had twice attempted to assassinate him. Understanding the military situation and with the domestic uprising in Iran, the president understood that the time was now. He realized that the only way to bring peace was to end the main party creating war. Iran was not only exporting terrorism but also supplying Russia with killer drones for use against Ukraine, emboldening Russia to maintain its war.

Trump acted in a way few leaders would. He saw vulnerability and took action to keep Iran from obtaining weapons that could destroy any country. He ordered the military operation, along with Israel, and the result is a greatly weakened Tehran. It is not nearly the threat it was less than two weeks ago. The world is safer and better off as a result.

 

Iranian Targets Hit in 11 Days