Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How does US-Israel security cooperation work without a formal pact?
Executive summary
The U.S.–Israel security relationship functions through a dense web of formal agreements, repeated congressional authorizations, large annual aid packages, joint exercises and technology partnerships rather than a single mutual-defense treaty; the U.S. has provided “over $130 billion” in bilateral assistance since 1948 and Congress continues to pass laws and bills to deepen cooperation [1] [2]. Recent reporting shows Israel is exploring a new 20-year framework that would shift emphasis from one-way aid to explicit cooperative research and multiyear guarantees — but those talks are proposals, not a treaty [3] [4].
1. How cooperation is structured: many instruments, not one pact
The U.S. and Israel rely on multiple, specific legal instruments and programs—Mutual Defense Assistance [5], a General Security of Information agreement [6], logistics and status-of-forces accords [7] [8]—plus annual and multiyear Memoranda of Understanding for security assistance, rather than a NATO-style mutual-defense treaty [1]. Congress and the executive branch also use defense appropriations, named acts, and the Defense Security Cooperation Agency to authorize sales, stockpiles, and program funding that bind the partnership in practice [9] [2].
2. Money and materiel: how aid functions as policy leverage
U.S. security support has long been provided as bilateral assistance that both strengthens Israel and ties procurement to American industry; State Department materials note over $130 billion in U.S. bilateral assistance since 1948 and describe aid as focused on addressing capability gaps [1]. Congressional reporting and bills show the same pattern: recent packages and proposed laws (e.g., United States‑Israel Defense Partnership Act of 2025) authorize funds for joint programs such as counter‑UAS, anti‑tunnel work, missile defense and munitions transfers — mechanisms that effectively lock in cooperation without a blanket mutual-defense clause [9] [2].
3. Joint programs, exercises and stockpiles: practical preparations
Beyond budget lines, the partnership uses physical and operational arrangements: U.S. War Reserve Stockpiles in Israel, joint research and development, and recurring exercises (Juniper Oak/Falcon) are explicitly cited by the State Department as features of the relationship that translate cooperation into readiness [1]. Congress and the NDAA process also enshrine programmatic cooperation — for 2025, lawmakers authorized funds for missile defense, anti‑tunnel programs and space collaboration, institutionalizing daily interoperability rather than a single treaty [10].
4. Politics and oversight: Congress shapes the relationship
Congress plays a continual role through aid packages, specific statutory programs, and public oversight reports. Congressional Research Service materials, bills, and the text of proposed legislation show that lawmakers decide program scopes (munitions, missile defense, counter‑UAS) and sometimes condition or expand cooperation, meaning U.S. policy toward Israel is managed piecemeal by elected branches rather than consolidated in a one‑page pact [2] [11].
5. Why some Israelis want a formal pact — and what “20 years” would change
Some Israeli officials and outlets report proposals to negotiate a new 20‑year security framework that would broaden scope, permit more joint R&D, and appeal to the current U.S. administration’s political priorities by reframing assistance as mutual cooperation rather than unilateral aid [3] [4]. Proponents argue longer guarantees reduce strategic uncertainty; critics or skeptics in reporting note that U.S. domestic politics (e.g., MAGA opposition to foreign aid) and congressional prerogatives complicate any permanent lock‑in [3].
6. Friction points and accountability: limits of an uncodified security bond
Recent classified U.S. reviews and congressional scrutiny highlight friction: one report flagged hundreds of potential Israeli human‑rights violations in Gaza that will take years to review, creating a source of tension between U.S. legal/ethical oversight and security cooperation [12]. Those developments underline that the partnership’s many moving parts—aid conditionality, oversight reviews, and legislation—can constrain what cooperation looks like in practice.
7. Competing narratives and implicit agendas
U.S. government materials portray the relationship as longstanding, mutually beneficial and institutionally deep [1]. Media reporting from Israeli and U.S. outlets frames the 20‑year proposal as both pragmatic and politically tailored to gain U.S. support [3] [4]. Advocacy outlets emphasize economic returns to U.S. defense industries and strategic gains to America [13] [10]. Each actor emphasizes different benefits—economic, strategic, legal or humanitarian—to shape public and congressional opinion.
Limitations: available sources do not present a finalized 20‑year pact; reporting describes proposals, existing legal instruments, congressional bills, and programmatic cooperation rather than a single binding mutual‑defense treaty [3] [1] [9].