In recent years, as the progressive Israel advocacy group J Street joined left-wing calls to place restrictions on U.S. military aid to Israel, support for funding Israel’s Iron Dome missile-defense system remained a sacred cow for the group — the final aspect of the old-school U.S.-Israel defense relationship that, even for most progressives, was unaffected by the broader Democratic shift away from unconditional support for Israel. 

That consensus has shattered in recent weeks. Instead of steering the conversation among Democrats, where J Street maintains a solid base of support, the organization found itself playing catch-up to the progressive lawmakers it supports after several of them announced in early April that they think the U.S. should no longer fund Iron Dome batteries. 

J Street released a statement on April 13 calling for the U.S. to cease funding Iron Dome batteries, arguing that Israel — a wealthy nation with a substantial defense budget — should pay for its own missile-defense systems. The announcement marked a significant policy shift for J Street, which has long stated that a congressional candidate’s support for U.S. financial backing of the Iron Dome system is one of its most important endorsement criteria. 

J Street’s leaders have insisted that they reached this conclusion independently, and not as a result of shifting political winds. But in a conversation on Monday, J Street’s chief policy officer, Ilan Goldenberg, acknowledged that progressives’ rapid shift on the issue factored into J Street’s announcement, even as the group insists it was moving in that direction anyway. 

“It stirred up the conversation a little more, but that memo was already written,” Goldenberg told Jewish Insider. “It’s not like this came out of nowhere. It was part of a track record of things we were doing. AOC kind of spurred up the conversation further.”

Goldenberg was referring to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) telling the Democratic Socialists of America’s New York chapter that she opposes “any spending on arms for Israel, including so-called defensive capabilities,” as she also called for an arms embargo on the country. Several progressive lawmakers followed, including Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Jared Huffman (D-CA) and Mark Pocan (D-WI), all of whom were endorsed by J Street and voted for Iron Dome funding in 2021. Ocasio-Cortez, who is not a J Street endorsee, voted “present” on that 2021 legislation but signed onto a 2024 statement with several other progressive lawmakers saying they “support strengthening the Iron Dome and other defense systems,” even as they opposed offensive weapons sales to Israel. 

“It’s been a combination of knowing this is coming, thinking through the substance of it ourselves and seeing the politics shift on it altogether that brought us to this point of making a decision about a week and a half ago to move in this direction,” Goldenberg said. 

Alan Solomont, a former U.S. ambassador to Spain and the past board chair of J Street, said the decision was something J Street was heading towards on its own. Since the beginning of this year, the group has begun calling for an end to U.S. military aid to Israel, saying that Israel can afford to buy its own weapons systems, though it had not specifically made that argument for the Iron Dome until last week. 

“We’re not following anyone else’s political lead. I think that, yes, we have been thinking about how we treat our military assistance in light of the policies of the current [Israeli] government, and we’ve been thinking about that for some time,” Solomont told JI last week. “Why people continue to support a government that is undermining Israel’s future is still sort of a puzzle to me.”

J Street’s leaders insist they are merely following the lead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said in an interview with The Economist in January that Israel is seeking to end U.S. financial assistance in the next decade. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a staunch Israel ally and a foreign policy hawk, then said he would accelerate that process, but he softened that position after a meeting with Netanyahu.

“Israel’s in a position now where it can pay for its weapons itself as a country that is as wealthy and powerful and successful as it is,” said Goldenberg, who served as Jewish outreach director on former Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign. “I think it got accelerated when Bibi and Lindsey Graham came out early this year.”

Still, Netanyahu’s call to phase out U.S. military aid has not yet resulted in any major policy shifts just yet, as the Memorandum of Understanding that provides Israel with its current $3.8 billion in annual military aid runs through 2028. Goldenberg said J Street wants to see the financial assistance “phased out in a responsible, rapid manner,” which he noted is “different than saying ‘cut it all off tomorrow.’” When asked whether J Street would support another Iron Dome missile-defense package if it were introduced at present, he suggested the organization would not.

“I would say that probably we support that not being in the supplemental,” Goldenberg said. 

At the same time that J Street and many progressive lawmakers are calling for an end to U.S. financial assistance for the Iron Dome, other far-left candidates don’t think Israel should have access to Iron Dome batteries at all, even if paid for with its own funds. 

Abdul El-Sayed, a candidate for Senate in Michigan, has said the U.S. should not sell any weapons to Israel. DSA and other far-left groups argue that Israel’s access to strong missile-defense systems like the Iron Dome allow it to perpetuate bombing campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon because Israeli civilians are protected, and therefore the Iron Dome is responsible for bloodshed in the region. J Street argues that its position is holding the line against that more extreme view.

“I think that is a position that we need to guard against. We need to recognize Israel’s legitimate security needs,” Solomont said. “We should certainly be concerned about Israel’s security, and work with Israel as an ally around its security. Our commitment to Iron Dome is simply that we think that Israel, with an economy and per capita GDP that is higher than other allies — we’re just following Netanyahu’s lead to say that Israel can pay for these things itself.”

As U.S. discourse about Israel has become increasingly polarized and the left has grown increasingly hostile to the Jewish state, support for Israel’s missile-defense systems that protect the lives of millions of civilians remained a popular bipartisan priority.

Even among many progressives who were otherwise critical of Israel, U.S. aid for systems such as Iron Dome remained a rare exception, with most praising the system as an important protection measure for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Emblematic of that fact: Just four House Democrats and two Republicans voted last year in favor of cutting $500 million in cooperative missile-defense funding that the U.S. provides to Israel annually.

But in the wake of the wars in Gaza, Iran and Lebanon, that consensus appears to be shifting quickly on the left. A growing number of progressive candidates — along with J Street, the left-wing Israel advocacy group — are now racing to disavow all military support for Israel, including for defensive systems such as the Iron Dome.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), one of the most prominent progressive standard-bearers, has been a trendsetter on the issue. She said earlier this month that she would not support any funding for Israeli missile defense going forward, after previously vociferously defending her vote against last year’s amendment cutting missile defense as a clear and easy choice.

Her reversal on the issue came amid criticism and pressure from Democratic Socialists of America members over that vote, as the far-left group debated whether to endorse her once more in her upcoming reelection bid.

Ocasio-Cortez argued that Israel is fully financially capable of funding Iron Dome and other defensive systems itself  — pointing in part to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments earlier this year that he wants to wind down U.S. aid to Israel, which have proven to be a thorn in the side of some pro-Israel advocates.

She was quickly followed by another prominent progressive Democrat, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who also harbors presidential ambitions, and other left-wing candidates. Another abrupt about-face on the issue came from former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who came out in support of Iron Dome funding during his 2025 mayoral campaign, but is now opposing it as he runs to the left of Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) in a congressional primary.

Michael Blake, the far-left challenger to Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), also said he would continue to support Iron Dome funding just months ago, but has now flip-flopped to oppose it. Meanwhile, Torres doubled down on his support for Iron Dome funding in a post on social media over the weekend, saying, “I will never join that bandwagon—no matter how politically expedient it may become. Even the world’s most committed pacifist should have no objection to Iron Dome. It is purely defensive. It does not attack anyone. It simply intercepts projectiles that would otherwise strike homes, hospitals, schools, and synagogues. Its sole purpose is to prevent mass murder.”

Strikingly, J Street, which frames itself as a pro-Israel group, is echoing the same rhetoric used by far-left lawmakers like Ocasio-Cortez. “What progressives are saying is not radical, and in fact, Benjamin Netanyahu and Lindsey Graham are arguing the same thing. Israel is capable of paying for its own military equipment, including supplies for its missile defense systems,” a J Street spokesperson told JI.

That stance is at odds with J Street PAC’s own endorsement criteria for candidates, as displayed on its website as of Friday afternoon. J Street President Jeremy Ben Ami said in a Sunday Substack post that he wants to see U.S. direct aid and subsidies to Israel ended “responsibl[y] yet rapid[ly]” upon the conclusion of the current U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding, but that the U.S. should continue to sell and co-develop defensive systems to Israel, subject to Israeli compliance with U.S. arms sales law.

Systems like Iron Dome are also co-produced by the U.S. and Israel, and similar arrangements would likely continue even if direct U.S. financial aid to Israel was ended in the short term.

And as the consensus among the left shifts, some anti-Israel Democratic candidates are pushing the envelope even further. Saikat Chakrabarti, a far-left candidate running for retiring Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) San Francisco House seat, said Thursday that “ending funding isn’t enough — we need sanctions.” Chakrabarti previously served as Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff.

There are signs that some more moderate lawmakers are also feeling the pressure from the left amid the declining support for Israel within the Democratic party: Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), who last year rejected efforts to block U.S. arms sales to Israel, said last week he’ll now oppose offensive aid while saying he views missile-defense support differently — a similar position to the one that progressives like Ocasio-Cortez and Lander held just months ago.

President Donald Trump drew two contradictory timelines for the ongoing war in Iran in remarks on Monday, saying that the conflict was both drawing to a close and in its early stages.

In a call with CBS News, Trump said, “The war is very complete, pretty much. [Iran has] no navy, no communications; they’ve got no air force. Their missiles are down to a scatter. Their drones are being blown up all over the place, including the manufacturing of drones. … There’s nothing left in a military sense.”  

The war has progressed faster than initially expected, the president added: “We’re very far ahead of schedule.”

Also Monday, the Department of Defense posted on X that “we have only just begun to fight, with a graphic of a missile interceptor and the text: “No Mercy.” 

At a news conference after his CBS News interview, Trump was asked whether the war is “very complete” or “just beginning.” 

“I think you could say both,” the president responded. “It’s the beginning of building a new country. We could call it a tremendous success right now, or we could go further.” 

“And we’re going to go further,” Trump added.

In his interview with CBS, Trump considered further steps, saying that he is “thinking about taking … over” the Strait of Hormuz.

The president later posted on Truth Social: “If Iran does anything that stops the flow of Oil within the Strait of Hormuz, they will be hit by the United States of America TWENTY TIMES HARDER than they have been hit thus far.”

The Strait of Hormuz is the only passage by sea from the Gulf to the open ocean and a critical chokepoint in the global energy market. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, said during a visit to Israel’s National Health Command Center on Monday that “our aspiration is to enable the Iranian people to cast off the yoke of tyranny; ultimately, it is up to them.”

“If we succeed together with the Iranian people, we will bring about a permanent end to the extent that such things exist in the lives of nations,” Netanyahu added. “We will bring about change, and we are already bringing about a massive shift in Israel’s international standing.”

The IDF Home Front Command reported only six missile launches from Iran to Israel in the past 24 hours, a significant slowdown from previous days of the war. 

The IDF continued to strike targets in Iran, including a missile launcher, 10 minutes after it fired at Israel. 

On Monday night, the IAF completed a wave of strikes against six major Iranian military airfields, destroying Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps aircraft, including combat helicopters.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun reached out to the U.S. to start direct talks with Israel on “permanent arrangements for security and stability on [its] borders.” He called for a “complete truce” ending Israeli military activity, and lamented that Hezbollah — which Beirut had agreed to disarm as one of the terms of its 2024 ceasefire with Israel — “wanted to achieve the fall of the State of Lebanon, under aggression and chaos.”

Israeli strikes on Hezbollah in Lebanon continued, with overnight attacks on command centers and the facilities of the Al-Quard Al-Hassan Association, which funds the Iran-backed terrorist group and works with cash, as well as a cell of Hezbollah terrorists approaching IDF soldiers and a structure in which commanders of the elite Radwan Force were said to be gathering.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar met with U.N. Special Coordinator for Lebanon Jeanine Hennis in Jerusalem on Monday. In his readout of the meeting, he noted that Hezbollah joined the war on Iran’s side “against the interest of Lebanon.”

“Over the past week there have been more attacks against Israel from Lebanese territory than from Iran,” Sa’ar said. “Weakening Hezbollah is a mutual interest of both Israel and Lebanon. I also said that Hezbollah initiated an attack against us and no member of the international community is acting to stop it besides us.”

Sa’ar and Hennis also discussed Israel’s decision not to evacuate residents from its northern border towns, in contrast with October 2023, and said that “the deployment of IDF troops in the border area is critical for preventing an invasion of Hezbollah’s ground forces and attacks against Israeli citizens and communities.”

The IDF estimated in recent days that over half a million Lebanese residents evacuated southern Lebanon.

Magen David Adom emergency services reported treating 76 people as a result of Monday’s missile attacks, two of whom were killed and 18 injured by missile debris.

Since the start of Operation Lion’s Roar, there have been 14 fatalities. MDA reported treating 667 people for injuries resulting from missile attacks, 511 of whom were injured making their way to shelter or in traffic accidents when stopping for a missile alert.

Iran and Turkey moved to de-escalate tensions between them in the immediate aftermath of the downing of an Iranian missile over Turkey on Wednesday, but the development signals dangerous potential if the conflict heats up between them, experts said.

NATO air defense systems shot down an Iranian ballistic missile heading for Turkish airspace on Wednesday. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan spoke with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, warning Araghchi not to allow the conflict to spread across the region. Turkey summoned the Iranian ambassador to Ankara for a reprimand.

“All necessary steps to defend our territory and airspace will be taken resolutely and without hesitation,” including consulting with NATO allies to protect the country, Turkey’s Defense Ministry said in a statement.

Officials told The Wall Street Journal the missile was targeting the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, which hosts American troops. At the same time, a Turkish official told Agence France-Presse that the missile was likely aimed at Cyprus, where Iran has struck British military assets.

Zvi Yehezkeli, an Arab affairs expert for i24 News, interpreted the missile over Turkey as mostly symbolic, meant as an Iranian message to Ankara to stay out of the war. 

Though Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he was saddened by the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the war, his response “was viewed in Tehran as hypocrisy,” and they see Erdogan as “playing a double game,” according to Yehezkeli.

“Ankara knows that this symbolic shot was mostly meant for domestic needs in Tehran,” Yehezkeli stated. “For Turkey, silence and containment are the most comfortable way at the moment.”

Gallia Lindenstrauss, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University specializing in Turkish foreign relations, told Jewish Insider that there were “efforts on both sides to minimize the significance of the event.”

In Ankara, she said, “some said [the missile] was meant for Cyprus, some said it was shot by independent groups and not under orders from Tehran. The Iranians said there was no attempt to harm Turkey.”

Lindenstrauss said that while Iran’s intentions are hard to confirm, they may have aimed at the Ceyhan port, through which Azerbaijan ships oil to Israel, especially in light of Iran’s strike on Azerbaijan the following day.

“The attempt to strike Turkey is part of an Iranian policy of trying to get everyone involved in the conflict. They are shooting in all directions. I don’t think [targeting Turkey] is a one-time thing,” she said.

Lindenstruass said she sees several possible negative consequences for Turkey from the war.

“Turkish commentators who understand the severity [of the missile attack] say that Iran is suicidal,” she said. 

In addition, Ankara is very concerned about the “spillover of destabilization,” including the possibility of the Kurds getting involved in the conflict, of European navies sending ships to the region to defend Cyprus, and a wave of refugees attempting to enter Turkey from Iran.

Turkey has long had a wall on its border with Iran, and hundreds of Iranians have successfully crossed the border since the start of the war on Saturday, according to Reuters.

“For Israelis, what is most concerning is a growing view [in Turkey] of Israel as a threat that has grown too strong,” Lindenstrauss said. “They have the idea that Israel is behind the events. They don’t blame the U.S.; they blame Israel for a provocation and sabotaging the negotiations.”

At the same time, Turkey is making gains from the conflict in its defense industry, she said.

“Turkey is supplying drones to Gulf States, and Saudi Arabia and Egypt are interested in the fighter jet that Turkey is building. The Gulf States are not happy with Turkish behavior, but they will not isolate Ankara because of its defense industry. That is seen [in Turkey] as a game-changer,” Lindenstrauss said.

David Wurmser, former Middle East advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney and a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, warned in a message, obtained by JI, that he sent to Israeli and American officials that Turkey may choose to join the war against Iran, expressing a broader concern about the involvement of radical Sunni countries.

After Iranian missiles struck Qatar, the Gulf state’s foreign minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, rejected Iran’s claim that they were aiming for American assets and said Tehran “was seeking to inflict harm on its neighbors and drag them into a war that is not theirs.” 

Pakistan publicly warned that Iran “should keep … in mind” that it signed a mutual defense pact last year with Saudi Arabia, which has been struck repeatedly by Iranian missiles and drones in recent days. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. 

“Any intervention by Turkey, Pakistan or Qatar is extremely dangerous,” Wurmser said. “It adds nothing, but transforms the texture of this war in extreme, dangerous ways. Even to the point that it can complicate or potentially even make [Israel and the U.S.] lose this … If a Sunni shark-feeding frenzy emerges, Iranians will hunker down, and become passive in fear, perhaps passive even against this regime.” 

Intervention by those countries would “transform the narrative of this war,” Wurmser said. “Right now, the war [is] one of the civilized world defending itself and returning Iran to the Iranian people from a lunatic, evil and sadist regime. It cast the Iranian people as our allies and part of our team in battle.”

“The Sunni threat to Iran, however, is seen by Iranians in their gut and bones as a matter of threatening death,” he added.

Wurmser noted that most Sunni states in the region “opposed this war; they tried to sabotage it.” He accused Turkey, Pakistan and Qatar of now “try[ing] to swoop in on the prey.” 

Yehezkeli also wrote about the role of deep-seated divisions between Sunni and Shi’ite states. 

The Shi’ite leadership of Iran “has a clear accounting of who supported [them], who was silent and who is the real enemy,” Yehezkeli wrote. “The background goes deeper than recent events. The hatred between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites, which began in Islam’s early days, never disappeared. It was only hidden at times behind political interests and temporary alliances.”

Lindenstrauss, however, said she thinks “the Turkish context is more complex” when it comes to the Sunni-Shi’ite divide.

“The largest minority in Iran is Azeris, and they’re Shi’ite and so is [Turkey ally] Azerbaijan,” she noted. “The Kurds are Sunni and that doesn’t calm the Turks down about them. … I don’t see Sunni cooperation against Iran.” 

Lindenstrauss said she thinks “Turkey’s interest is for the Islamic Republic to stay in charge [of Iran] but weaker, yet not so weak that there will be a wave of refugees and a Kurdish uprising.”

With Israel’s current 10-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the U.S. set to expire in 2028, Jerusalem is reportedly seeking a renewed and expanded agreement that would run through 2048 — though questions remain over the deal’s final framework and the future of U.S.-Israel assistance. 

The current memorandum between the two countries was signed in 2016 under President Barack Obama and provides Israel with $3.8 billion in military aid and missile-defense funding annually. 

The first 10-year framework agreement between the two countries, for $21.3 billion, went into effect in 1998, during the Clinton administration. The second, for $32 billion, began in 2008 under President George W. Bush. 

Israel is looking to finalize a new 20-year agreement that entails more in annual assistance, with hopes of securing the deal within the next year. Negotiations were previously delayed due to the war in Gaza; however, Israeli and U.S. officials confirmed to Axios that initial discussion began in recent weeks. In an interview with journalist Erin Molan last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said of the Axios report, however, “I don’t know what they’re talking about. My direction is the exact opposite.”

“MOU negotiations typically take a long time, and waiting for both countries to get through their respective 2026 elections puts the start of these talks well into fiscal year 2027,” said Dana Stroul, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “If there are going to be changes in the funding levels, Israeli and American budgeteers will want this information as early as possible.”

“If the Israelis have any concerns about the strength of support in the U.S. or in the subsequent administrations, securing an agreement now is smart,” said Elliott Abrams, a former diplomat and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “2028 is an election year, and it’s better to resolve this now. In addition, they may believe that President Trump will be friendlier than any likely successor.”

In his second term, President Donald Trump’s administration has significantly reduced foreign aid spending, and members of both parties have become increasingly skeptical of U.S. assistance to Israel. 

Experts argued that it would be in Israel’s best interest to secure a deal now amid the uncertainty over future support from U.S. officials. Stroul said Israel “may be calculating that it is better to get out ahead of this trend and lock in U.S. commitments before the midterm elections.”

“If the Israelis have any concerns about the strength of support in the U.S. or in the subsequent administrations, securing an agreement now is smart,” said Elliott Abrams, a former diplomat and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “2028 is an election year, and it’s better to resolve this now. In addition, they may believe that President Trump will be friendlier than any likely successor.”

Chuck Freilich, Israel’s former deputy national security advisor and an associate professor of political science at Columbia University, echoed those sentiments, and said the agreement will not be a “done deal” as it has been in the past. 

“I don’t think it’s going to be easy this time,” Freilich told Jewish Insider. 

“It’ll still be a very tough sell,” said Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “Israel’s solid value proposition as a U.S. partner falls flat with Trump’s base, which tends to reject the premise that we need strong international partnerships.”

Abrams, who served under several Republican presidents, including as Iran envoy during the first Trump administration, said that despite growing skepticism, he does not view the right wing as a problem to Israel’s security agreement ambitions.

“Trump has been insistent that he and he alone defines what MAGA means,” said Abrams. “I don’t think the problem will be the Trump administration or the MAGA voters, who in all polls are strongly supportive of Israel. It will be the Democrats, whose representatives in Congress have cast votes in the last two years that suggest limiting aid to Israel.”

However, some experts argue that such a package still might not be palatable to the MAGA base. 

“It’ll still be a very tough sell,” said Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “Israel’s solid value proposition as a U.S. partner falls flat with Trump’s base, which tends to reject the premise that we need strong international partnerships.”

In response to debates over foreign aid, Israel’s proposal reportedly includes “America First” provisions, designed to appeal to the president and his base. This includes using some of the money for joint U.S.-Israeli research and development, rather than direct military aid. 

“The reported changes deal with development and duration,” said David May, a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “The new MOU would include provisions for funding joint U.S.-Israel research and development projects. Israeli research and ingenuity are part of what makes the relationship so beneficial for the United States, so it is natural to emphasize this fruitful aspect.”

Stroul said these parts of the proposed framework would benefit both parties moving forward.

“Israel and the U.S. can clearly benefit from more co-production, and more joint research,” said Stroul. “The U.S. military should already be learning from the IDF, who are coming out of two years of continuous, multi-front, all-domain warfare, including establishing complete air superiority over Iran.”

“The reality is that military aid is spent in the United States after approval by the U.S. government,” Stroul added. “This is critical for maintaining military production lines in the U.S.  Trump is focused on revitalizing U.S. manufacturing and industry, and creating jobs for Americans. His team is focused on upgrading and streamlining the defense industry. President Trump has a solid track record of bucking the voices in his MAGA coalition questioning Israel and U.S. commitments in the Middle East when it works for Americans.”

U.S. aid agreements are viewed in Israel as vital to preserving its qualitative military edge over regional adversaries. Washington has either jointly developed or financed all three layers of Israel’s missile-defense architecture — the short-range Iron Dome, medium-range David’s Sling and long-range Arrow systems.

Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. aid since 1946 and remains among the top recipients of U.S. arms sales. Brad Bowman, a senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the perception that U.S. foreign assistance to Israel is a gift with no return on investment is a misguided approach.

“I think there’s a misperception in some circles in Washington that this is like a charity handout,” said Bowman. “Americans get far more than we give in the relationship with Israel. Some of our allies and partners actually know how to throw a punch against common adversaries, and I put Israel near the top of that list. So when you have an ally or partner like that helping them throw more effective punches it is not charity. It’s a wise investment.”

“Remarkably, the U.S.-Israel defense partnership has only deepened over the past two years despite increasing criticism of its approach to Gaza,” said Dana Stroul, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It would be an unmistakable signal to Iran and its degraded network for the U.S to signal through a longer MOU that it will continue to stand with, and invest in, Israeli’s offensive and defensive capabilities.”

By strengthening Israel, Bowman argues that American diplomacy is reinforced and Iran is likely to take the U.S. “more seriously.” 

While U.S. aid once accounted for a large share of Israel’s defense budget, it has declined in recent years as Israel’s economy and domestic defense industry have expanded. Still, Israel depends on American weaponry and security assistance.

“Remarkably, the U.S.-Israel defense partnership has only deepened over the past two years despite increasing criticism of its approach to Gaza,” said Stroul. “It would be an unmistakable signal to Iran and its degraded network for the U.S to signal through a longer MOU that it will continue to stand with, and invest in, Israeli’s offensive and defensive capabilities.”

Analysts said Israel’s reliance on U.S. defense systems is not likely to fade anytime soon, expressing that security ties between Washington and Jerusalem will remain indispensable, even as Israel works to grow its domestic defense capabilities.

“Israel learned from the Gaza war that it needs to manufacture what it can at home — some forms of ammunition, for example — and stockpile what it can,” said Abrams. “But it cannot be independent from the U.S. because it does not manufacture jets or much of the ordinance they use, as well as other weapons systems.”

Bowman echoed these sentiments, telling JI that Israel is “never going to be completely independent in terms of producing its own weapons.” 

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has denied reports about the framework of a new aid agreement, and has increased calls for an “independent” defense industry. 

“Netanyahu may want to deny it at the moment until he wraps things up with Trump,” said Freilich. “This may have gotten out earlier than he wanted it to, and maybe in a way that he didn’t want it to.”

Freilich said that Trump is unlikely to approve just “any new deal,” and said Israel will need to prepare for a future in which it gradually weans off U.S. assistance.

“[Israel’s] not going to be able to get massive aid forever — at some point it has to end,” Freilich said. “You have to differentiate between the financial aspect and the arms supply aspect. Israel will depend on American weapons for the very long term, if not forever. But that doesn’t mean they have to be funded forever by the U.S.”

The House of Representatives on Thursday rejected, in a 422-6 vote, a bid by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) to block the $500 million in cooperative missile-defense funding the U.S. provides annually to Israel.

Greene’s amendment sought to strip the funding, provided annually under the terms of the U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding, from the House’s 2026 Defense funding bill. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), had introduced a similar amendment.

Greene, Omar and Reps. Al Green (D-TX), Summer Lee (D-PA), Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) voted for the aid cutoff.

The House also defeated Greene-led amendments that would have cut military funding for Jordan by a 400-30 vote, for Ukraine by a 353-76 vote and for Taiwan by a 421-6 vote. Only Republicans voted for each of those amendments.

Legislators also rejected, by a 355-76 vote, an amendment by Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) to cut funding for the Lebanese Armed Forces. All of the votes in favor came from Republicans.

Steube has long opposed funding for the LAF, arguing that it is complicit in Hezbollah’s actions against Israel and infiltrated by Hezbollah members and sympathizers.

Greene argued on the House floor that the Israel funding is “money we don’t have” and that Israel is “very capable of defending themselves.”

Referring repeatedly to the Jewish state as “nuclear-armed Israel,” Greene suggested that Israel’s undeclared nuclear capabilities should deter any threats — even though that has not been the case in the past. Israel has long maintained a policy of nuclear ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying its possession of a nuclear arsenal.

She also highlighted the U.S.’ extensive use of its own ballistic missile interceptors to defend Israel during the recent Iran-Israel war.

Greene noted Israel’s bombing this week of a church in Gaza, for which the Israeli government apologized, calling it a mistake, and said that “an entire population is being wiped out as they continue their aggressive war in Gaza.”

The funding in question supports programs including Iron Dome, Arrow and David’s Sling that are jointly developed by Israel and the United States. The systems, designed to intercept threats like missiles and drones, do not have offensive applications.

Reps. Ken Calvert (R-CA) and Betty McCollum (D-MN), the chair and ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee, both spoke on the House floor against Greene’s amendment, as did Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL).

Calvert said that Israel’s success in intercepting ongoing attacks has come partly as a result of the U.S. missile-defense funding provided in past years. He highlighted that the funding supports the U.S.’ defense industrial base, funding production of the systems in both the U.S. and Israel and joint technological development.

McCollum is a vocal longtime critic of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians and the Israeli military operations in Gaza.

“To be clear, I have disagreements with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government,” McCollum said, describing the war in Gaza as a “tragedy.” “But the funding in this bill does not support offensive weapons for Israel. … This bill provides for defensive measures only.”

McCollum said that everyone in the region deserves safety and that “Israeli children deserve to go to bed at night knowing that missiles from Yemen, Iran or from the Houthis or anywhere else in the region will not rain down on them.”

Fine highlighted that there is a significant American population in Israel under threat from air attacks. He said the co-development of missile-defense programs with Israel helps support America’s own air defense, including President Donald Trump’s Golden Dome proposal for a national air-defense infrastructure.

Addressing Greene’s comments, he noted that America has nuclear weapons, but that hasn’t deterred some adversaries from trying to attack it.

“When we oppose this amendment, when we vote it down, we are not only standing with Israel, we are standing with the best interests of the United States,” Fine said.

An Iranian missile struck Beersheba, the largest city in southern Israel, for the second consecutive day on Friday, hours after President Donald Trump said he would decide in the next two weeks whether to join Israel in striking the Islamic Republic.

The IDF unsuccessfully attempted to intercept the surface-to-surface missile from Iran, which injured seven and left a crater at the blast site and damage to buildings in the area of Beersheba’s HiTech Park.

One of the sites reportedly damaged was Microsoft’s office in Beersheba, which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed worked in “close collaboration with the Israeli military” and was “part of the system supporting aggression, not merely a civilian entity.” 

Beersheba Mayor Rubik Danilovich said, “There is extensive damage, but people acted according to Home Front Command instructions” — to enter safe rooms and shelters — “and saved themselves. Our challenge is to collect the residents and find them solutions. We prepared for this.” 

Some of the residents wounded by the blast were evacuated to Soroka Medical Center, the hospital in the city where an entire wing was destroyed by a missile a day prior. That wing was older and, unlike other areas of the hospital complex, not reinforced to protect from attacks.

Hours before the strike on Beersheba, the IDF shot down an Iranian drone near the Dead Sea. 

But in most parts of the country, Israelis had their first quiet night in a week, with no sirens interrupting the sleep of residents of central or northern Israel. 

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Thursday that President Trump would take up to two weeks to decide if the U.S. will join Israel’s operation against Iran. Key components of Iran’s nuclear program are in a facility in Fordow built under a mountain, and experts said Israel does not have the capability to destroy it from the air, while the U.S. has Massive Ordinance Penetrators and B-2 heavy stealth bombers, which are thought to be have the capacity to destroy it.

“I have a message directly from the president, and I quote, ‘Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,'” she said at a White House briefing.

“He’s been very clear,” Leavitt stated. “Iran went for 60 days when he gave them that 60-day warning without coming to the table. On day 61, Israel took action against Iran. And as I just told you from the president directly, he will make a decision within two weeks.”

Israel struck the Lavizan area of Tehran late Thursday night. Earlier this week, opposition news outlet Iran International reported that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was underground with his family in Lavizan. 

In the early hours of Friday morning, the IDF struck Rasht, a town near the Caspian Sea in northern Iran, and the location of a technological park. The IDF sent residents an evacuation notice before the strike, saying that it plans to “attack military infrastructure” in the area.

Over 60 IAF aircraft attacked dozens of targets in Iran overnight, including “an essential component for nuclear weapons,” IDF Spokesperson Effie Defrin said in his daily briefing on Friday. 

Defrin said that Iran had planned a larger attack on Beersheba on Friday morning but Israel thwarted that plan, destroying three primed launchers. “Prior to launch, we detected the deployment of three launchers that were ready to fire, as seen on the screen, and we neutralized them,” Defrin said.

Israeli aircraft  struck production sites for missiles and missile components, as well as radar installations and a weapons research and development center in Tehran, the IDF Spokesperson’s office said.

Asked about reports that the IDF is running low on interceptors, Defrin explained that the more missile launchers Israel strikes in Iran, the fewer interceptors it will need in Israel.

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported on Thursday that Israel caused severe damage to Iran’s heavy water reactor in Khondab, used for research. IAEA Director Rafael Grossi said he did not expect any radiological consequences.