Untimely: Israeli Think-Tank Proposes Defense Treaty With US

The current administration, for example, is helping Iran move forward on the nuclear path by offering numerous concessions to the Iranian regime even before any agreement on Iran's nuclear program is concluded.
A good example is the
findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iranian violations
of existing nuclear inspections, which the Joe Biden administration has simply swept under the rug.

For Israel the question is difficult in that it can hardly wait until Iran deploys nuclear weapons, at which point trying to eliminate them would potentially involve the use of nuclear weapons either by Iran or pre-emptively by Israel.
This is what
Benjamin Netanyahu mentioned at the UN , although his remarks were“walked back” by the Prime Minister's Office.

It is hard to see what value a defense treaty would have in the context of Iran's push for nuclear weapons and long-range missile delivery systems.

Similarly, it is hard to see how Saudi Arabia would benefit from a US defense treaty, since the US is unlikely to bomb Tehran to stop its nuclear-weapons buildup. A Saudi-US defense treaty would potentially help the kingdom if Iran directly attacked the country. But even when it has done so, as the attacks on the
Abqaiq and Khurais
oil installations that came directly from Iranian territory, Washington did nothing and said very little.

Of course the whole problem for Saudi Arabia gets complicated when Iran uses proxies to launch ballistic missiles, drones and cruise missiles on Saudi targets. Most of these originate in Yemen, some from Iraq. The US offers little help to combat such attacks.

There are other complications for Israel as well.
Would a defense treaty apply to attacks by non-state actors such as Hezbollah, Hamas or Islamic Jihad, or attacks originating from the Palestinian West Bank?
The US would never agree to a text that obliged it to come to Israel's aid under a terrorist attack.
In fact, the US response to terror attacks against Israel and Israeli citizens has always been subdued at best.

Presumably a defense treaty would protect Israel from a Russian attack, but a direct Russian attack is extremely unlikely.
However, the Russians would see a defense treaty between the US and Israel as Israel taking sides in the bigger geo-strategic struggle between Washington and Moscow.
This could encourage the Russians to step up arms supplies to Syria and Iran, something that does not serve Israel's interests.

In practice Israel and Russia have found ways to cooperate and to try to avoid confrontation. Whether that will hold in the long run is an open question, especially as Russia starts supplying Iran with advanced weapons including the Su-35.

INSS makes the point that a defense treaty might facilitate defense-technology cooperation with the United States.
In many ways Israel is a brain trust already for the United States and is able to pioneer in many areas important to US security.

For example, Israel's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization is partnered with the US Missile Defense Agency and cooperates on air defenses including, most recently, exoatmospheric defense in the form of Arrow-4 development.

Israel is also rapidly developing sophisticated sensor-to-shooter technologies, advanced microelectronics and artificial intelligence.

These and other technologies are already sought after by the US Defense Department and by US defense companies, not to mention important US commercial companies including Intel, Microsoft, Google and many others.

There is no reason to think that a defense treaty would improve technology sharing or cooperation.

INSS says:“As an official ally, Israel's access to advanced American weaponry and unique technologies would be guaranteed for the long term, thereby maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge over time.”

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

Unfortunately, defense treaties do not guarantee or assure access to US weapons or unique technologies.
Technology sharing is always a matter of national interest that is defined by time and circumstances.

Take the case of the F-35 stealth fighter. This is America's fifth-generation fighter aircraft, stuffed with exotic technology. Lockheed, the US defense giant that manufactures the F-35, desperately wanted Israel to adopt the plane and not buy a new, advanced version of the F-15. Lockheed believed, correctly, that if Israel incorporated the F-35 as its top frontline fighter, other customers would gravitate to the F-35.

Lockheed was right.
Lockheed, not the US, needed a defense treaty to do the deal, and in fact Israel got concessions on technology that exceed cooperative deals with major European and Japanese partners.

What isn't clear is why INSS decided that Israel needs a defense treaty now.
If it was to help out Saudi Arabia, there is no reason to believe it would do so.

There is little evidence that favors a US-Israel defense treaty, unless the real idea is to make Israel depend on the US for its future security.
If that is the point, Israel should be wary of depending on US help. It has to defend itself.

In short, a US-Israel defense treaty is an untimely idea.

Stephen Bryen
is a senior fellow at the
Center for Security Policy
and the
Yorktown Institute. This
article
was originally published on his Substack, Weapons and Strategy.
Asia Times is republishing it with permission.

Like this:Like Loading...