Senior Pentagon officials are reportedly weighing a sweeping proposal to reorganize the U.S. military that would shift authorities and resources away from the Middle East, a move experts warn could undermine U.S.-Israel security cooperation and destabilize the region.

The plan, driven by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, would reduce the number of U.S. combatant commands from 11 to eight, cut the number of four-star generals and consolidate regional commands into broader organizations. Most notably, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) — which oversees the Middle East and parts of South Asia — would be placed under a newly created U.S. International Command.

CENTCOM has long served as the backbone of U.S. military operations in the Middle East, overseeing operations ranging from efforts to stabilize Gaza to the recent U.S. strikes in Syria and June strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. 

In January 2021, Israel was moved into CENTCOM’s area of responsibility, placing the Jewish state within a U.S.-led regional framework aimed at countering Iran and deepening military integration with Arab partners. Senior commanders have maintained frequent engagement with Israeli defense officials on regional threats, including this past weekend, when reports indicated that Israeli officials notified the head of U.S. Central Command that an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps missile exercise could signal preparations for a strike on Israel. 

But despite looming threats in the region, the Trump administration’s strategy would shift military focus and resources toward the Western Hemisphere.

“The reported shift in U.S. combatant command organization reflects the Trump administration’s priorities as laid out in the 2025 National Security Strategy,” said Alexander Gray, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. “With the administration’s focus on the Indo-Pacific and the Western Hemisphere, it is fitting that it would similarly align combatant commands to reflect its priorities: While Africa, Europe, and Central Command could be combined, Indo-Pacific Command and Southern Command would remain standalone, reflecting the NSS’ regions of focus.”

Gray said that despite a potential reorganization, U.S. defense cooperation with Israel is “unlikely to be impacted,” noting that the structure places an emphasis on “bilateral relationships most essential to U.S. interests,” which he says would benefit Israel. 

However, other experts warned that dismantling or downgrading CENTCOM will not only impact U.S. interests and alignment with Israel in the region, but risks unraveling years of progress.

“Significantly downsizing resources and personnel from the region in an effort to withdraw from the Middle East is only going to cause problems down the road,” said Michael Koplow, chief policy officer at the Israel Policy Forum. “Ensuring that the Middle East builds upon the integration stemming from the Abraham Accords and efforts to realize initiatives requires a focused and well-helmed regional command.”

“If the reorganization happens, it will have detrimental effects on Israel and the wider region,” said Michael Koplow, chief policy officer at the Israel Policy Forum. “The Middle East presents unique challenges stemming from Iranian efforts to upend the regional order and the importance of protecting sea lanes and trade routes. Treating the region as one component of a larger command risks harming U.S. goals.”

Koplow warned that such a move would mean “less high-level interaction with regional partners” which would put cooperation between the U.S. and Israel “at risk.” He also cautioned that a U.S. exit would provide “an opening to Iran, or China, capitalizing on the vacuum” in the Middle East. 

“Significantly downsizing resources and personnel from the region in an effort to withdraw from the Middle East is only going to cause problems down the road,” said Koplow. “Ensuring that the Middle East builds upon the integration stemming from the Abraham Accords and efforts to realize initiatives requires a focused and well-helmed regional command.”

Blaise Misztal, vice president for policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, echoed these concerns, saying that such a plan would have reverberations beyond shared cooperation. He noted that CENTCOM plays an important role in leveraging regional partnerships and putting together a defensive coalition of Middle Eastern countries — key to countering Iranian aggression.

“If we assume that the proposals go into effect, and we get rid of CENTCOM, or subsume it into some sort of larger combating command, it’s entirely feasible that a lot of those benefits will be lost, and a lot of the progress that has been made over the past five years will be reversed,” said Misztal, referring to the timeframe in which Israel joined CENTCOM’s area of responsibility. 

Misztal raised concerns about the proposal’s objective to decrease the number of four-star generals and admirals who report directly to Hegseth, which would see CENTCOM’s command status downgraded and remove its four-star authority. 

“Whoever would be responsible for the Middle East would no longer be a four-star general. A lot of what has been accomplished by CENTCOM has been accomplished by the fact that it is commanded by a four-star general,” Misztal said, noting that such leaders bring prestige and influence into the region. “If you do not have a four-star [general] in charge of a combat and command with the resources and authorities that come along with that, even if you have the same level of coordination and cooperation, they might not be able to allocate the resources that would be needed to achieve those same policy objectives.” 

Misztal added that such a move would also “take away the perception of the U.S. caring about the Middle East,” which he said would hurt U.S. posture in the region and benefit Iran.

“A lot of the U.S.-Israel relationship is being managed personally between President [Donald] Trump and Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, or by [White House Special Envoy] Steve Witkoff or Jared Kushner, and presumably that part of the relationship would not change, regardless of what happens on the security side,” said Blaise Misztal, vice president for policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. “But affecting policies where it comes to bringing U.S. military power to bear might be more challenging.”

“When [Arab partners] perceive that there’s a flagging of U.S. interest or involvement in the region, they turn away, they strike deals with Iran, they reach out to Russia or China, or make their own security arrangements,” said Misztal. “It sets in motion the possibility for a lot of our partners to walk away from the cooperative security arrangements that have been built both with the United States and with Israel.”

Experts emphasized that any proposed change to CENTCOM would not necessarily signal a shift in U.S. policy toward Israel. However, Misztal said it could become more difficult for the U.S. to execute military policy in the region and provide the same level of support moving forward.  

“A lot of the U.S.-Israel relationship is being managed personally between President [Donald] Trump and Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, or by [White House Special Envoy] Steve Witkoff or Jared Kushner, and presumably that part of the relationship would not change, regardless of what happens on the security side,” said Misztal. “But affecting policies where it comes to bringing U.S. military power to bear might be more challenging.”

Specifics of the proposal remain limited and few details have been shared with Congress, according to reports. The changes would require approval from both Hegseth and Trump. In the event the plan were to move forward, Misztal said he could envision a scenario in which a smaller Middle East-focused structure remains within a broader command.

“Without more detail as to what is being planned, it’s hard to know entirely what will happen,” said Misztal. “It is possible that in some new combatant command there will remain a sub-command that is focused on the Middle East, that can continue to try to focus on the threats, like we’ve seen with ISIS and Syria over the past week, or focus on Iran more broadly, or continued cooperation with Israel on ceasefires in Lebanon and Gaza.” 

President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities in June, dealing a significant blow to the Islamic Republic’s weapons program, is viewed favorably by 60% of Americans, according to a newly released survey commissioned by the Ronald Reagan Institute.  

The decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear program was one of the most popular policies the Pentagon has made in Trump’s second term, according to the survey. Of the 10 policies tested, only two (using force against drug traffickers in Latin America and issuing gender-neutral standards for combat roles) had a higher net approval rating.

Despite the widespread support for the airstrikes, there is a partisan divide in support. Republicans overwhelmingly supported the military action, while 39% of Democrats did so. 

The survey also painted a mixed picture about the state of U.S.-Israel relations, finding that two-thirds of Americans consider Israel to be an ally, including 57% of Democrats. The share of respondents calling Israel an ally is down six points from the institute’s survey last year. When it comes to sending weapons to Israel, half of respondents were supportive — with a 68% supermajority of Republicans, but just 35% of Democrats. 

If Hamas refuses to demilitarize Gaza, however, 54% of Americans would favor further Israeli military action, including 42% of Democratic voters.

“Overall, the American people know who is the ally and who the adversary is in the Middle East,” Roger Zakheim, the director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute, told Jewish Insider. “Even after the impact of Israel’s lengthy war against Hamas in Gaza, you still have close to a supermajority [in the U.S.] viewing Israel as a strong ally, which is reassuring for Jerusalem.”

The findings are part of a wide-ranging examination of American public opinion on national security issues, indicating a consistent American preference to maintain engagement in the world. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents said the “it is better for the United States to be more engaged” in international affairs, with just 33% disagreeing. 

Notably, support for the U.S. sending weapons to Ukraine as it defends itself from Russian attacks wins widespread support, with 64% in favor — a nine-point jump from last year’s survey. Ukraine is also viewed as an ally by three-fourths of respondents. Only 17% said they thought Russia was an ally, while 79% viewed the country as an enemy.  

When asked which country poses the greatest threat to the U.S., China held a sizable lead, with nearly half of respondents naming Beijing, while 26% ranked Russia at the top. Only 3% said Iran posed the greatest threat.

The poll of 2,507 adults was conducted jointly by Beacon Research, a Democratic firm, and Shaw & Company Research, a Republican firm, between Oct. 23-Nov. 3. The two polling firms also conduct Fox News’ polling. 

It was released in the run-up to this year’s Reagan Defense Forum, which is being held this Friday and Saturday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif.

Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee from both parties voiced concerns with Elbridge Colby, under secretary of defense for policy, and his office at the Pentagon, at a committee hearing — for the second time this week.

While Thursday’s proceedings, a confirmation hearing for Alex Velez-Green, nominated to be Colby’s top deputy and who has been a senior advisor to him in an interim capacity, were generally less heated than a Tuesday hearing with nominee Austin Dahmer, lawmakers reiterated concerns with a lack of consultation by Colby’s team and alleged rogue decision-making on a range of issues by the office.

“Many of this committee have serious concerns about the Pentagon’s policy office and how it is serving the president of the United States and the Congress,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the committee, said in his opening statement. “In many of these conversations, we hear that the Pentagon policy office seems to be doing what it pleases without coordinating, even inside the U.S. executive branch.” 

Wicker, pushing back on a defense offered earlier this week by Dahmer — who dismissed many concerns as fallacious and based on inaccurate media reporting — said that the issues raised by committee members were based on their own conversations with other administration officials and United States allies.

“Either all of these other administration officials and senior foreign officials are deliberately misleading us or we have a problem coming from this office,” he continued.

He said that the policy office can begin to rectify those issues by meeting “its statutory requirement to consult with this committee … rather than simply informing us of a decision after the fact.”

“We need a process that works for the president and the [Congress]. Unfortunately, we do not have such a process at this moment,” Wicker said, adding that progress will require a “change in a mindset” from the policy office.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) added that, “the perception is that there’s some disagreement between what has been put out [by the policy office] and what the president wants. And I think it’s pretty important that you guys figure out how to stop that.”

Velez-Green generally took a conciliatory posture, pledging to communicate and consult with lawmakers whenever possible and appropriate. He also insisted that the policy office and the entire Department of Defense have been diligent in ensuring they are fully aligned with the president’s policy.

But Velez-Green also insisted that the policy office had not directed a pause in U.S. arms transfers to Ukraine, which was later publicly overridden by President Donald Trump, who said he had not been aware of or instructed any such moves. Multiple Senate Republicans pointed to a news release from the Pentagon that specifically stated that such a pause had been implemented.

Velez-Green also denied media reports that Colby had opposed the deployment of additional U.S. forces to the Middle East during the war between Israel and Iran.

Lawmakers again raised concerns that they and U.S. allies in Romania had been notified only days ahead of time that the U.S. would be withdrawing troops from Romania, and that lawmakers were only provided a notification after the decision had been made rather than consulted ahead of time.

“Congress was not consulted about this. I think I can say with certainty about that,” Wicker said.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) was the only lawmaker to offer an unequivocal defense of Colby and his office, accusing those criticizing Colby over both policy decisions and communication issues of attempting to block his policy preferences.

“I think much of the criticism, which is cloaked in terms of transparency and communication, really is just an effort to undermine a shift in our foreign policy orientation, which I support, which is to realism, as opposed to some of the failed points of view that have dominated permanent Washington over the last 30 years,” Schmitt said, adding that criticisms of Colby and his team reflect “resistance from those invested in maintaining the foreign policy status quo that has repeatedly failed the American people.”

Senate lawmakers from both parties on the Armed Services Committee excoriated the Department of Defense policy office run by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby at a Tuesday hearing. They criticized the office for a lack of communication with lawmakers as well as a series of controversial decisions seemingly at odds with White House policy.

Lawmakers expressed frustration that they had not received sufficient communication from the Pentagon’s policy office and criticized Colby and his team for making controversial decisions like pausing U.S. aid to Ukraine, opposing the deployment of additional U.S. forces to the Middle East during Israel’s war against Iran, withdrawing U.S. forces from Romania and re-assessing the AUKUS submarine agreement with the U.K. and Australia.

Democrats have publicly voiced frustration with Colby’s alleged rogue decision-making in the past, but the committee meeting — a confirmation hearing for several civilian Pentagon officials — constituted an unusual public airing of grievances from Republicans and Democrats alike about their concerns with Colby and his office.

“It just seems like there’s this pig-pen like mess coming out of the policy shop that you don’t see from [other departments of the Pentagon]. Why do you think it is that there’s so many controversies emanating out of the policy shop and not these other offices in the department?” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) asked Austin Dahmer, the nominee to be assistant secretary of defense for strategy, plans and capabilities — a top position in Colby’s department — who is currently serving in an acting capacity as one of Colby’s chief deputies.

Cotton also serves as the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“I’ve noticed an unsettling trend this year at times, that Pentagon officials have pursued policies that are not in accord with President Trump’s orders, or seem uncoordinated within the administration,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said, adding that the members of the committee have found out about such moves from press reports rather than the Defense Department.

“There are strong foreign policy debates in my political party. We do not have consensus on every issue and I welcome healthy discussion on America’s role in the world. I think the president does too,” Wicker continued. “Amid these debates, I think everyone would expect the president’s national security strategy staff to follow his lead and implement his vision.”

He added that committee members “have struggled to receive information from the policy office and have not been able to consult in a meaningful way with [the policy office] either on the national defense strategy or the global posture review. … The situation needs to improve if we are to craft the best defense policy.”

A  frustrated Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) described Colby as “the hardest guy to get a hold of in the Trump administration.”

“He came to this committee and said, ‘Hey, I’m going to work with the Congress.’ He hasn’t, on big issues,” Sullivan continued. “I can’t even get a response and we’re on your team.”

Sullivan and other lawmakers expressed particular frustration with the lack of consultation from the administration on the forthcoming national defense strategy and global posture review, which news reports indicate will prioritize the Western hemisphere and domestic missions at the expense of other threats and theaters including China.

Dahmer, a former staffer for Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), pleaded ignorance about the controversial moves and lack of communication or claimed that such moves had not happened and that public reporting about them was false.

Regarding the recent drawdown of troops from Romania, Dahmer claimed that lawmakers had been briefed three times prior to the move — but Wicker said that neither the majority nor minority staff had been notified ahead of time about the plans.

“I think all of us would like to have more information on how the decision was made” and communicated to Romania, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said, adding that he had more questions for Dahmer about “what the policy office has been doing as compared to the president’s and secretary’s directives and stated policy objectives” and “confusion between what the president and secretary called for versus what the policy office has been doing, from weapons sales and deliveries to troop draw-downs.”

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the committee’s ranking member, said that Dahmer had “cloaked your testimony in a veil of ignorance, when in fact you were basically the stand in and the surrogate for [Under] Secretary Colby. … You’re clearly avoiding answers to questions that you should have been acutely aware of in your position.”

“I think you’ve essentially indicated to us that you won’t cooperate with us,” Reed continued.

Wicker also criticized the administration for providing notification to Congress on Sunday — days before the confirmation hearing — that it had renamed and changed the duties of the position for which Dahmer is nominated. Reed said that those changes were apparently made a month ago, without notifying Congress.

Alex Velez-Green, another former Hawley staffer nominated for a top Pentagon post under Colby, is scheduled to appear for his own confirmation hearing later this week.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, in a Pentagon meeting with Qatari Defense Minister Saoud bin Abdulrahman Al Thani on Friday, signed a deal to open a Qatari Air Force facility at the U.S. Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho. 

The deal is eliciting widespread shock and outrage from a broad ideological spectrum of political figures.

The latest deal follows the announcement of sweeping U.S. defensive guarantees to Qatar, similar to those the U.S. has made to its NATO allies, both signs of an increasingly close military alignment between the U.S. and Qatar — a key sponsor of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The base is set to host Qatari F-15 jets and pilots for joint training operations, in order to “enhance our combined training, increase lethality, interoperability,” Hegseth said. He also praised Qatar for helping to mediate the ceasefire agreement in Gaza.

The deal has elicited criticism from voices as wide-ranging as Trump ally and far-right influencer Laura Loomer and Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin.

Loomer wrote a spree of X posts lambasting the deal, framing it as the vanguard of a Muslim Brotherhood invasion of Idaho and the United States, a threat to national security, a precursor to a potential terrorist attack and the harbinger of the downfall of Western civilization.

“Now that the GOP has decided to literally harbor Islamic terrorists on US soil, I don’t really care about fighting for Republicans as much as I did yesterday. I have lost hope for 2026 and 2028 to be totally honest,” Loomer said. “While we’re at it, why don’t we just give the CCP an air base and some gain of function labs on US soil? lol Might as well!”

“An economic bailout for Argentina. An air force base for Qatar. This guy is doing everything but putting America first,” Martin said, a sentiment echoed by the DNC’s vice chair, Malcolm Kenyatta.

Other progressive activists have suggested a connection between the deal and Qatar’s gift of a luxury jumbo jet to serve as Air Force One.

“This is a dangerous precedent. The Qataris are state sponsors of terrorism masquerading as American allies,” Jonathan Schanzer, the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Jewish Insider. “One can only hope that the Qataris are forced to mend their ways before such a deal comes into effect. Otherwise, this will be viewed across the Middle East as rewarding bad behavior.”

Amid the backlash, Hegseth shared an “important clarification” on X.

“The U.S. military has a long-standing partnership w/ Qatar, including today’s announced cooperation w/ F-15QA aircraft,” Hegseth said. “However, to be clear, Qatar will not have their own base in the United States — nor anything like a base. We control the existing base, like we do with all partners.”

Some are defending the deal, including Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID), who called the agreement “fantastic news” that is “beneficial for training, enhances our partnership with America’s allies, and strengthens national security.” The Air Force facility will be located in Simpson’s Idaho district.

Former Pentagon advisor Dan Caldwell, an isolationist foreign policy voice who briefly served under Hegseth, called the “freak out around this … totally unwarranted,” adding, “this is actually a pretty common practice with countries that buy and operate a lot of U.S. military aircraft. Singapore has a similar facility and detachment for its F-15 training unit at this very same airbase.”

“No more beardos,” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared during his lengthy speech to top military commanders in Quantico, Va., last week, announcing new, stricter grooming policies for U.S. servicemembers, which had been gradually loosened in recent years to allow more soldiers to maintain beards and other facial hair.

“The era of rampant and ridiculous shaving profiles is done,” Hegseth continued. “Simply put, if you do not meet the male-level physical standards for combat positions, cannot pass a [physical training] test or don’t want to shave and look professional, it’s time for a new position or a new profession.”

The new rules, circulated in a memo to military members, would end most existing religious exemptions allowing troops to maintain beards, returning to pre-2010 standards — when the military first granted an exemption to a Sikh soldier to maintain a beard in uniform. The regulations would present a potential obstacle to Orthodox Jewish servicemen who maintain beards. The policy also prohibits sideburns below the ear openings, potentially impacting servicemen who wear peyot.

Religious facial hair waivers will be “generally not authorized” under the new policy, and will require “individualized reviews” with “documentation demonstrating the sincerity of the religious or sincerely held belief … sufficient to support a good faith determination by the approving authority,” according to the memo. They will only be authorized in “non-deployable roles with low risk of chemical attack or firefighting requirements.”

The policy cites the need for military personnel to be able to wear protective breathing equipment that may not seal safely in the presence of facial hair. Repeated non-complicance may lead to individuals being separated from the military.

“The military obviously has its need for discipline and uniform adherence,” Rabbi Levi Shemtov, the executive vice president of American Friends of Lubavitch (Chabad), told Jewish Insider. “At the same time, it has been, and we hope it will continue to be, cognizant that certain individuals, for them to serve and accommodation will be necessary, and as in the past, if everything else about that particular person adheres to military standards, then they should get the dispensation they need.”

“The military has shown an ability to balance its requirements with enabling Jewish personnel to serve with distinction. I hope they can do [so in] this case as well,” Shemtov added.

Rabbi A.D. Motzen, national director of government affairs at Agudath Israel of America, told JI that his group is also tracking the issue.

“If the new religious exemption procedures make it more difficult for soldiers or chaplains to maintain beards or sideburns that conform with their religious beliefs, it is a matter of concern for us,” Motzen said. “Agudath Israel has championed religious freedom in many settings including the military and has fought for those rights on the local, state and federal levels and in the courts. We have fought for the rights of Jews as well as members of other faiths such as Sikhs. We hope that this administration, which strongly supports religious freedom, will clarify the new guidelines and ensure that the same religious liberty principles will be applied to the new grooming guidelines.”

Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Brad Schneider (D-IL), the co-chairs of the Congressional Jewish Caucus, released a joint statement on the new policy with the chairs of the Congressional Asian American Pacific Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus.

The statement calls Hegeth’s comments “appalling” and an “insult to the millions of Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian Americans who have answered the call to serve.” The lawmakers said that any attempt to “eliminate or stigmatize beard accommodations … risks marginalizing communities that have long faced discriminatory grooming standards in the military.”

“Time and time again, these brave men and women have shown that they can practice their faith while serving honorably and effectively,” the statement continues. “Freedom of religion is a fundamental right that our nation’s servicemembers defend and have the right to exercise themselves. Religious accommodations for beards, which were permitted under the first Trump presidency and repeatedly upheld by the courts, must remain in place.”

The Democratic lawmakers said that the administration must offer further clarity on how they will uphold religious liberty for servicemembers.

The policy is also expected to impact servicemembers granted medical waivers to maintain beards due to a skin condition that disproportionately affects Black men.

A group of Jewish House Democrats raised questions on Friday about the Pentagon’s decision to announce a $200 million contract with Elon Musk’s company xAI to utilize a version of its Grok artificial intelligence, days after the chatbot posted antisemitic and violent screeds on X. The legislators said they’re concerned about Musk’s potential influence on the program and lingering issues linked to the antisemitic outburst.

“These posts were not isolated but widespread, repeated, and shockingly detailed. They appeared immediately after Mr. Elon Musk, CEO of xAI, publicly stated on July 4 that Grok had been ‘significantly improved,’” the lawmakers said in a letter to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. “The proximity of these events raises grave questions about Mr. Musk’s potential direct influence over the output of ‘Grok for Government,’ and the risk to American national defense from using a compromised product subject to the whims of an unaccountable CEO with clear extremist predilections.”

They said the contract also fits with “a broader and increasingly visible pattern of the Department turning a blind eye to antisemitism in its own ranks,” including Hegseth’s defense of Kingsley Wilson, the Pentagon’s press secretary, against accusations of antisemitism.

“If Mr. Musk retains the ability to directly alter outputs from ‘Grok for Government,’ it poses a serious and unacceptable risk to national security and American constitutional values,” the letter adds.

The lawmakers asked whether Musk can “unilaterally access, modify, or influence” the Grok application to be used by the Pentagon to change outputs or access classified information, what safeguards are in place to prevent unauthorized changes to the Pentagon’s Grok platform and whether the Department of Defense has audited Grok to ensure that issues similar to the incident of the antisemitic remarks will not occur in its own use of the program.

“Without clear guardrails, there is no reason to believe the behavior of ‘Grok for Government’ in military applications will remain stable or aligned with DoD security and ethics standards,” the lawmakers said. “Mr. Musk’s personal disregard for basic safeguards, combined with the Department’s own recent appalling tolerance for antisemitism, require the creation of far more technological and institutional transparency than we have seen to date.”

The letter, led by Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA), was co-signed by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Sara Jacobs (D-CA) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL).

The 2025 Aspen Security Forum kicks off today and finds itself unexpectedly thrust into the ideological fights gripping the administration.

The Defense Department announced Monday that it would be withdrawing numerous senior military and civilian officials who had been set to speak at the conference.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told Jewish Insider: “Senior Department of Defense officials will no longer be participating at the Aspen Security Forum because their values do not align with the values of the DoD. The Department will remain strong in its focus to increase the lethality of our warfighters, revitalize the warrior ethos, and project ‘Peace Through Strength’ on the world stage. It is clear the ASF is not in alignment with these goals.” Spokesperson Kinglsey Wilson offered even more pointed criticism to right-leaning outlet Just the News, saying the conference “promotes the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the President of the United States.”

It’s tough criticism of a forum that prides itself on bipartisanship and aims to foster cross-partisan dialogue and solution-making, even as those attributes are in short supply in today’s Washington. The forum said in a statement, “we will miss the participation of the Pentagon, but our invitations remain open. … The Aspen Security Forum remains committed to providing a platform for informed, non-partisan debate about the most important security challenges facing the world,” noting that voices across the political spectrum will be speaking this week.

Many had been hoping to hear Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse, who was originally scheduled for a panel discussing the evolution of warfare, speak about his agency’s leaked report suggesting the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities had minimal effects, but Kruse was among the speakers withdrawn by the Pentagon.

Among the administration speakers still scheduled to appear are hostage envoy Adam Boehler, speaking on Thursday, and Tom Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria. Barrack will be speaking on a Friday panel about the Middle East alongside former CIA Director David Petraeus and former Deputy National Security Advisor Dina Powell McCormick.

Wednesday’s Israel-focused panel will feature former IDF Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin, former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Herzog, former Biden administration official Brett McGurk and author and “Call Me Back” podcast host Dan Senor. 

An Iran-focused panel on Thursday will include former U.S. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, former CEO of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Rachel Bronson and Johns Hopkins professor Vali Nasr.

There’s likely to be plenty of discussion throughout the week about the ways the Trump administration’s strikes on Iran will shape policy in the Middle East — and throughout the world — going forward, and about the ongoing impacts of the war in Gaza.

Former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan will be speaking on Friday on a panel with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper and former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson will also be speaking Friday, on AI and cybersecurity issues, respectively. Former Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo will speak on Thursday about international aid and trade.

Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE), John Cornyn (R-TX) and Mark Warner (D-VA) will lead the conference’s annual “View from the Senate” panel on Friday.

We’ll be keeping an ear out for discussion about the internal debates between hawks and isolationists taking place within the Trump administration over America’s role and engagement in key global arenas — from the Middle East to Ukraine and Asia. We’ll also be tracking  proposed efforts to restructure the U.S. intelligence community.

Expect a significant focus throughout the week on the many ways that the Trump administration’s unpredictable foreign policy — from its recommitment to providing Ukraine military aid to the status of tariffs against key countries, along with the recent, sweeping cuts to the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development — is shaking up global affairs, how the private sector and foreign countries are adapting and how leaders can attempt to maintain bipartisanship on foreign policy.

The Pentagon’s chief spokesman said on Wednesday that the U.S. strikes against the Iranian nuclear program had set the program back by two years. His estimate appears to be the most specific information the Trump administration has shared on the extent of the damage caused by the strikes.

U.S. allies “share our sentiments about the degradation of Iran’s nuclear program and the fact we have degraded their program by one or two years … I think we’re thinking closer to two years,” Sean Parnell said at a press conference.

The administration has consistently claimed the strikes completely destroyed the nuclear program. During the briefing, Parnell said that he believed the combination of U.S. and Israeli strikes would be successful in deterring Tehran from continuing its nuclear program in the future. 

“We believe that sending bombers from Missouri, 37 hours on a mission, not a single shot fired on them, took a very strong psychological toll on the Iranian leadership,” Parnell said. “So, when you take the constellation of different things into consideration, we believe Iran’s nuclear capability has been severely degraded, perhaps even their ambition to build a bomb.”

Parnell’s remarks came hours after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told CBS News that the country’s nuclear facilities were “heavily and severely damaged.” Araghchi maintained that Iran’s enrichment equipment and knowledge base were not impacted, despite Israel assassinating several of the country’s senior nuclear scientists. 

Araghchi also said that Iran’s nuclear agency was still conducting damage assessments at the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites. This was confirmed by geospatial imagery analysis from the Institute for Science and International Security, which showed crews working to gain access to the underground sections of the facilities.

President Donald Trump and other administration officials denied a report that U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities had only set Iran’s nuclear program back by several months, continuing to insist the nuclear sites were “completely destroyed” and “obliterated.”

CNN reported on Tuesday night that an early intelligence assessment by the Pentagon found that the core components of Iran’s nuclear program were still intact and the regime could continue seeking a nuclear bomb, according to seven people briefed on the matter. 

Speaking from the NATO Summit in the Netherlands on Wednesday, Trump told reporters, “That was a perfect operation. … And also, and nobody’s talking about this, we shot 30 Tomahawks from submarines … and every one of those Tomahawks hit within a foot of where they were supposed to hit. Took out a lot of buildings that Israel wasn’t able to get. … This was a devastating attack and it knocked them for a loop. And, you know, if it didn’t, they wouldn’t have settled. … If that thing wasn’t devastated, they never would have settled.”

“I don’t want to use an example of Hiroshima. I don’t want to use an example of Nagasaki, but that was essentially the same thing that ended that war,” he said later. “This ended that with the war. If we didn’t take that out, they’d be fighting right now.”

“It was obliteration,” he said of the U.S. strikes in Iran. “And you’ll see that, and it’s going to come out. Israel is doing a report on it, I understand. … You know, they have guys that go in there after the hit, and they said it was total obliteration.”

“I don’t think they’ll ever do it again,” Trump continued, referring to Iran’s enrichment of uranium. “They just went through hell. I think they’ve had it. The last thing they want to do is enrich.” 

The president also posted on Truth Social earlier, saying, “FAKE NEWS CNN, TOGETHER WITH THE FAILING NEW YORK TIMES, HAVE TEAMED UP IN AN ATTEMPT TO DEMEAN ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL MILITARY STRIKES IN HISTORY. THE NUCLEAR SITES IN IRAN ARE COMPLETELY DESTROYED! BOTH THE TIMES AND CNN ARE GETTING SLAMMED BY THE PUBLIC!”

Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, speaking to Fox News shortly after the CNN report was released, called the leak “treasonous” and said, “There is no doubt that it [Iran’s nuclear program] was obliterated. So the reporting out there that in some ways suggests that we didn’t achieve the objective is just completely preposterous.” He said it was “not even conceivable” that Iran could still achieve a nuclear weapon within months.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio similarly denied the report but offered a more measured assessment of Iranian nuclear capabilities, telling Politico on the sidelines of the NATO Summit on Wednesday that, “The bottom line is, they are much further away from a nuclear weapon today than they were before the president took this bold action. That’s the most important thing to understand — significant, very significant, substantial damage was done to a variety of different components, and we’re just learning more about it.” 

White House Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said, “This alleged ‘assessment’ is flat-out wrong and was classified as ‘top secret’ but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community. … Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000 pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.”

A CNN spokesperson said in a statement to Jewish Insider, “CNN stands by our thorough reporting on an early intelligence assessment of the recent strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which has since been confirmed by other news organizations. The White House has acknowledged the existence of the assessment, and their statement is included in our story.”

David Albright, president and founder of the Institute for Science and International Security and an expert on the Iranian nuclear program, called the report “hard to believe” and “misleading.” Among other analyses, he said Iran has “likely lost close to 20,000 centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow, creating a major bottleneck in any reconstitution effort. Moreover, there has been considerable damage to Iran’s ability to build the nuclear weapon itself.”

The 21 members of the House Jewish Caucus — all Democrats — pressed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in a letter sent on Tuesday expressing concerns about Kingsley Wilson, the recently promoted Pentagon press secretary with a history of antisemitic and otherwise controversial comments.

“Recent public reporting has highlighted a series of deeply troubling and offensive statements made by Kingsley Wilson, now serving as Pentagon Press Secretary,” the letter reads. “These statements include promoting the antisemitic and racist ‘Great Replacement’ theory, praising far-right political movements using slogans tied to neo-Nazi groups, and repeating patently false statements commonly circulated in neo-Nazi circles about Leo Frank, a Jewish man who was lynched by an antisemitic mob in Georgia in 1915.”

The letter argues that the remarks are “not isolated or ambiguous and have long been associated with violence and hate” and “their presence boldly and unrepentantly plastered in the public record of a senior Department official raises serious questions about the Department’s commitment to opposing extremism and antisemitism.”

Hegseth, at a recent Senate hearing, defended Wilson and said her comments had been mischaracterized for political gain, but also said he’d need to see her comments in full to evaluate them.

The lawmakers asked Hegseth whether the remarks are acceptable for a senior Pentagon employee in a public-facing role, how the Pentagon evaluates whether public statements necessitate disciplinary action, any steps the administration has taken in the past in response to antisemitic comments from Pentagon employees and whether Hegseth personally finds the comments acceptable for a representative of the Defense Department.

“We look forward to promptly receiving your reply. In the meantime, we urge the Department to affirm its responsibility to uphold the highest ethical standards,” the lawmakers wrote. “That includes an unambiguous commitment to confronting and unequivocally condemning antisemitism — especially within its own ranks — and ensuring that individuals who promote hate are quickly and appropriately held accountable.”

The letter was led by Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA) and co-signed by caucus co-chairs Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Brad Schneider (D-IL) and co-signed by Reps. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Greg Landsman (D-OH), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Sara Jacobs (D-CA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Jake Auchincloss (D-MA), Eugene Vindman (D-VA), Kim Schrier (D-WA), Mike Levin (D-CA), Becca Balint (D-VT), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL).

Wilson’s record has also previously elicited concern from Republicans.

Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Sunday morning that the U.S. operation in Iran overnight had hit all of its planned targets and that initial assessments showed that the strikes had inflicted extensive damage on Iran’s nuclear facilities. But Caine said that a full assessment of whether the Iranian nuclear program had been fully destroyed would take more time.

Speaking alongside Caine at a Pentagon press briefing, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth emphasized that the strike was limited and strictly targeted at Iran’s nuclear program and was not designed to prompt regime change. He added that the U.S. continues to seek peace with Iran.

“Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,” Caine said. Pressed on whether Iran retains any nuclear capability, Caine said that a full assessment “is still pending, and it would be way too early for me to comment on what may be there.”

Hegseth added that the U.S. believes it “achieved the destruction of capabilities” at the Fordow nuclear facility, which he described as the “primary target.”

The operation, dubbed Midnight Hammer, involved seven B2 stealth bombers which dropped a total of 14 bunker-buster bombs on Fordow and Natanz, accompanied by more than two dozen cruise missiles fired at Esfahan. Officials described Fordow as the primary U.S. target. 

More than 100 other aircraft were involved in support capacities, and Caine said that Iran did not fire a single shot at U.S. forces or even deploy its fighter jets during the operation.

Plans for the strike were kept to a limited number of officials, and the U.S. conducted a deception effort to disguise its preparations. Caine said that Israeli operations over the past week had helped pave the way for the U.S. strike but Israel was not directly involved in the overnight operation.

Hegseth said that congressional leaders were notified about the strike after U.S. aircraft had left Iranian airspace.

He stressed that the strike “did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people” and reiterated that Trump continues to seek peace with the Iranian regime.

“The United States does not seek war,” Hegseth said. “But let me be clear: We will act swiftly and decisively when our people, our partners or our interests are threatened. Iran should listen to the president of the United States and know that he means it every word.”

He emphasized that the operation was “most certainly not open-ended” but that the U.S. would “respond if necessary.”

Hegseth said the U.S. had sent public and private messages to Iran to ask its leaders to come to negotiations.

“They understand precisely what the American position is, precisely what steps they can take to allow for peace, and we hope they do so,” he continued.

Asked about whether U.S. assessments or intelligence about the status of Iran’s nuclear weaponization effort had changed since March, when Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon, Hegseth did not specifically contradict Gabbard.

“I would just simply say that the president has made it very clear he’s looked at all of this, all of the intelligence, all of the information, and come to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear program is a threat, and was willing to take this precision operation to neutralize that threat in order to advance American national interests,” Hegseth said.

Caine said that U.S. forces throughout the region had stepped up measures to protect U.S. forces from retaliation.

“Our forces remain on high alert and are fully postured to respond to any Iranian retaliation or proxy attacks, which would be an incredibly poor choice. We will defend ourselves. The safety of our service members and civilians remains our highest priority,” Caine said.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth offered a strident defense of Kingsley Wilson, the recently promoted Pentagon press secretary with a history of espousing antisemitic conspiracy theories, under questioning at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday.

Wilson, prior to her appointment, attacked the Anti-Defamation League for memorializing the 1915 lynching of Leo Frank, a Jewish man who was wrongly convicted for raping and murdering a child, and called the ADL “despicable.” Wilson insisted that Frank was guilty — a niche and discredited theory largely associated with neo-Nazis.

She also has frequently boosted the antisemitic “Great Replacement” theory, advocated for Christian nationalism, used a neo-Nazi linked slogan to praise the far-right Alternative for Germany party, compared the murder of Israeli babies by Hamas to abortion and opposed U.S. aid to Israel, among a host of other controversial comments.

“I’ve worked directly with her, she does a fantastic job, and any suggestion that I or her or others are party to antisemitism is a mischaracterization attempting to win political points,” Hegseth said in a heated exchange with Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), who co-chairs the Senate antisemitism task force.

“Senator, you’re attempting to win political points on the backs of mischaracterizing the statements of a member of my department and I’m not going to stand for that,” Hegseth continued.

“Your lack of an answer confirms what we’ve known all along: The Trump administration is not serious. You are not a serious person, you are not serious about rooting out and fighting antisemitism within the ranks of our DoD,” Rosen responded, as she and Hegseth attempted to shout over each other. “It’s despicable. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.”

Some Senate Republicans, including the Armed Services Committee chairman, had expressed concern about Wilson prior to her promotion and said that they were probing the issue and expected the Pentagon to address it.

Rosen referenced some of those criticisms in her questioning of Hegseth.

Earlier in her questioning, before mentioning Wilson specifically, Rosen asked Hegseth if he agreed that antisemitic conspiracy theories should not have a role in the government or military and that individuals who promote neo-Nazi conspiracy theories should not be in positions of power.

“Since I don’t believe the characterization of many officials in the news media, I would need to see precisely what’s being characterized,” Hegseth said initially, before affirming that he agreed.

Hegseth was also asked multiple times throughout the hearing about potential U.S. planning for a strike on Iran or to defend U.S. troops should Iran target them. He largely declined to speak publicly on the issue beyond saying that the Pentagon’s role was to plan for a range of potential scenarios. Hegseth will take more questions from senators in a classified setting in the afternoon.

Kingsley Wilson, a deputy press secretary at the Department of Defense who has come under fire from Democratic and Republican lawmakers and Jewish communal organizations for promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, has been promoted to serve as the department’s press secretary, the Pentagon announced on Friday. 

“Kingsley’s leadership has been integral to the DoD’s success & we look forward to her continued service to President [Donald] Trump,” Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesman and a senior advisor to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, posted on X on Friday. 

When Wilson was named deputy press secretary in March, she faced widespread condemnation for dozens of tweets viewed as antisemitic and racist. On two different occasions, she attacked the Anti-Defamation League for sharing its origin story — the organization was founded after the lynching of Leo Frank, an Atlanta Jew widely believed to have been wrongly convicted of raping and murdering a white child over a century ago. 

“Leo Frank raped and murdered a 13-year-old girl,” Wilson wrote in 2023 in response to a post from the ADL, and repeated the claim a year later. “He also tried to frame a black man for his crime. The ADL is despicable.” (The tweet has not been deleted.) 

Wilson has also called Confederate General Robert E. Lee “one of the greatest Americans to ever live” and regularly promoted the antisemitic “Great Replacement Theory.” 

Her appointment in March drew bipartisan criticism. “Obviously I don’t agree with her comments. I trust the Pentagon will address this,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) told Jewish Insider at the time. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called for her firing. 

Spokespeople for the Pentagon and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday. 

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) on Friday criticized the hiring of Kingsley Wilson, who has a lengthy history of sharing antisemitic conspiracy theories, as deputy press secretary at the Pentagon in a statement to Jewish Insider on Friday.

“Antisemitism and all forms of racism are completely unacceptable and have no place in the Pentagon or government,” Bacon, a new co-chair of the House antisemitism task force, said. “With the alarming rise in antisemitic rhetoric and attacks, we must firmly stand united with the Jewish communities here in the United States and around the world.”

Bacon is now one of just a small number of Republicans who have publicly addressed the situation, with many telling JI this week that they were not familiar with the situation or not responding to requests for comment.

JI reached out on Thursday to other Republican co-chairs of the antisemitism task force, including Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Meuser (R-PA) on Thursday, but they did not respond.

Rep. Craig Goldman (R-TX), one of three Jewish House Republicans, declined to comment.

JI also spoke to several senators about Wilson’s long record of antisemitism, most of whom said they were not aware of the situation but would look into it. Those members include Sens. James Lankford (R-OK), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mike Rounds (R-SD) and Thom Tillis (R-NC).

Congressional Democrats lambasted the Trump administration for hiring Kingsley Wilson, who has a lengthy history of posting antisemitic conspiracy theories, as a deputy press secretary at the Pentagon. Republicans have largely remained silent on the issue. 

“As antisemitism continues to surge around the world since October 7th: The Trump administration hired a top Pentagon official with a history of antisemitic conspiracy theories and extremism,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a statement. “It’s outrageous, and Secretary [Pete] Hegseth must fire her now.”

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), the co-chair of the Senate antisemitism task force, told Jewish Insider that Wilson’s “appalling comments and conspiracy theories paint a disturbing pattern of behavior.”

“No one who engages in this antisemitic rhetoric should ever hold a position in the U.S. government, and it is alarming that the Trump administration hired her in the first place,” Rosen continued.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who previously served in the Pentagon, told JI, “Whether it’s her antisemitic comments, delegitimizing Kosovo or promoting conspiracy theories, this woman is unfit to serve alongside our men and women in uniform.”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) also described Wilson’s hiring as characteristic of the Trump administration.

“Wilson has a long history of antisemitism and her comments are egregious and disqualifying,” Wasserman Schultz said. “But Trump has always surrounded himself with extremists, conspiracy theorists, and the far-right fringe, so I can’t say I’m surprised. She is not fit to serve in any role given her bigoted views.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), a co-chair of the House Jewish Caucus, described Wilson as the latest in a series of problematic hires.

“It is outrageous that someone with a history of promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories is now speaking for the Pentagon,” Nadler said in a statement. “Kingsley Wilson’s extremist views have no place in our government — yet under President Trump, they are not the exception, they are the rule. She is just the latest addition to a disgraceful roster of staffers who reflect this administration’s disturbing embrace of hate and bigotry. The American people deserve better.”

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), the co-chair of the House antisemitism task force, said that Wilson “must be removed immediately.”

“To stomp out antisemitism, we must do it on the extreme left & right,” Goldman said. “No one who compares Hamas’ infanticide to abortion, promotes Great Replacement Theory, or celebrates the lynching of Jews should get an important DOD appointment.”

Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) wrote to Hegseth, calling Wilson’s hiring “an insult to the integrity of the Department of Defense” and that she is “unfit for any position of public trust,” and demanding she be fired immediately.

“If Kingsley Wilson is the type of person you believe should represent the Department of Defense, it raises serious questions about your judgement — and your commitment to the values that define this nation,” Torres wrote, adding that a failure to fire her would be “reasonably understood by the public as an endorsement on behalf of yourself and the Pentagon of her repugnant views.”

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that he had not been briefed beyond the basic details about the situation, but expressed sadness at the notion of a young person being so bigoted.

The Virginia senator said that the “first thing” he asked himself upon learning of Wilson’s comments was, “I wonder how old this person is, because you should never see this from a young person.”

“How could a young person have their mind so poisoned by this? I mean, I don’t get it. There’s no excuse for antisemitism or bigotry, but I, sort of I guess naively, think that young people would be more immune to it,” Kaine told JI. “What has been your life experience that has led you to that belief?”

No congressional Republicans commented on the situation to JI on Thursday, with several  saying they weren’t familiar with the situation and saying they would look into the matter. Others did not respond to requests for comment.

On Wednesday, Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) told Politico the comments were “horrible” and “not appropriate.” She was not the only member of her conference to speak out.

“I’m not gonna tell them who to hire, but I do know that [President Donald] Trump doesn’t believe any of the things she’s talking about, and I’ll leave it up to them to determine if they think she’s the right spokesperson,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told the outlet. “If what you say about these posts are true, then she’s completely off-script with President Trump.”

When Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi traveled to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla., yesterday, the visit marked the beginning of a new phase in a military relationship between the U.S. and Israel that is already strong and extensive.

“The current operational cooperation and the planned improvements agreed during my visit attest to the mutual commitment between CENTCOM and the IDF to deal more effectively with the diverse and emerging challenges,” Kochavi said in a statement. 

The U.S. military has 11 combatant commands, each of which has a specific geographic or functional mission. For instance, Cyber Command, which defends national security interests in cyberspace, and Africa Command, which strengthens the defense capabilities of African countries; and Space Command. Before Trump’s announcement, Israel, despite its geographic location, had fallen under European Command, which works closely with NATO on security issues in Europe. 

Kochavi’s visit marked the first time the top IDF official had visited CENTCOM’s Tampa headquarters since former President Donald Trump announced in January, days before leaving office, that Israel would soon fall under CENTCOM’s area of responsibility, a shift from its current status as part of European Command (EUCOM). The announcement marked the culmination of years of unofficial cooperation between Israel and CENTCOM, whose mission is to “build cooperation among nations throughout the Middle East.”    

The main reason for the longstanding arrangement was the icy relationship that historically existed between Israel and its Arab neighbors. But as Israel has begun cooperating with Persian Gulf nations — including recent diplomatic agreements with Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, and reported behind-the-scenes coordination with Saudi Arabia — the U.S. made a change to its Unified Command Plan. 

Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, Chief of General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, participates in a wreath laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on June 21, 2021 in Arlington, Virginia.

“The easing of tensions between Israel and its Arab neighbors subsequent to the Abraham Accords has provided a strategic opportunity for the United States to align key partners against shared threats in the Middle East,” the Pentagon said when it announced the change in January. 

“We saw this as the next military step after the Abraham Accords,” said Michael Makovsky, president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA).

Two months before the Trump administration’s policy change, JINSA authored a report urging the Pentagon to make such a change. Makovsky, one of the report’s lead authors, told Jewish Insider that he first began to raise the subject privately in 2018. After the Abraham Accords were signed last year, “we also got wind that this was being seriously considered,” he said, leading his organization to publish the report. 

Part of JINSA’s goal in advocating for the change is to push for an expansion of the Abraham Accords, potentially even bringing a powerhouse like Saudi Arabia into the diplomatic agreement signed last year. “It could facilitate cooperation even with those countries [that the Israelis] don’t have diplomatic ties to,” Makovsky said. “Is it possible the Saudis could be part of some military architecture that Israeli is part of, without having diplomatic ties? It’s possible, especially if you have the United States as a leader in all this.” 

The change has not yet formally happened — CENTCOM Commander Marine Corps Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr. told a Senate Armed Services committee hearing in April that the transition should take place by the fall — but Kochavi’s visit to the Pentagon and the Tampa headquarters this week show that both Americans and Israelis are already taking the change seriously. “I am absolutely confident that we will be able to retain Israel’s military advantage,” McKenzie said at the hearing. 

Army Gen. Stephen Townsend, left, commander, U.S. Africa Command, and Marine Gen. Kenneth McKenzie Jr., commander, U.S. Central Command, talk before the House Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, April 20, 2021.

So what does the change mean for U.S.-Israel military cooperation? 

“Military officers are often quick to acknowledge that there is very close and ongoing coordination between Israel and CENTCOM on issues of common concern, but right now, of course, there is no full-time Israeli presence at CENTCOM,” said Michael Eisenstadt, director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s Military and Security Studies Program. 

When Israel is integrated into CENTCOM, the Israeli military will have staff stationed in Tampa. “Having a full-time military representative, or a team of representatives there, first of all, would enable Israel to see where they can contribute to CENTCOM’s mission on a day-to-day basis, rather than coming over for visits and having a set agenda,” like Kochavi did this week, Eisenstadt explained.

He compared the situation to that of college students who live off-campus, removed from the center of university life. “When you live in town, you come to school for classes, and then you go back home, and you don’t have a full understanding of what’s going on on campus,” said Eisenstadt. “When you live on campus, you have a much better handle of those things, and you get to know a lot more of the students” — and the same can be true of Israel’s new role at CENTCOM, Eisenstadt suggested. “Once the Israelis have representatives there, it will create opportunities for both official and informal networking with representatives from other countries, some of which Israel still doesn’t have diplomatic relations with,” he said.

Even before the move, Israel was edging closer to CENTCOM, with more collaboration happening between Central Command and the IDF. McKenzie said in April that Israel was historically not part of CENTCOM “particularly because of strains between Egypt and Israel. We are now well past that.” Former CENTCOM Commander Gen. Joseph Votel became the first leader of Central Command to visit Israel in 2018. 

McKenzie told senators in April that the reason for moving Israel into CENTCOM was that “all of Israel’s threats really emanate from the east, which is in the CENTCOM area of responsibility.” 

One of those threats is Iran. “You had a president [Trump] that’s very focused on Iran. Israel is a primary player on the ground pushing back against the Iranians, which is in the overriding interests of other CENTCOM members, such as Saudi, UAE, Bahrain and others,” Makovsky explained. “If your orientation is that the Iran threat is the most important challenge in the region, then it makes a lot of sense for this to happen.”

U.S. Army Paratroopers assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, deploy from Pope Army Airfield, North Carolina on January 1, 2020. – Paratroopers from 2nd Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division were activated and deployed to the U.S. Central Command area of operations in response to recent events in Iraq.

Even before this change, U.S.-Israel military cooperation was already strong. Eisenstadt pointed out that in some ways, this move just streamlines a relationship that already exists. 

“The coordination is so extensive, I’m not sure [the move to CENTCOM] will, in practical terms, have a major impact,” Eisenstadt stated. The U.S. and Israel already “have this long-standing, deep dialogue on Iran. But again, having people there, it’s just always better.” 

Advocating for Israel to become part of CENTCOM has not been a talking point for pro-Israel organizations other than JINSA, in part because the U.S.-Israel military relationship is already a deeply ingrained part of U.S. defense infrastructure. “I don’t remember it ever being something that people have been discussing,” Makovsky said. “It seemed as though the reason why we came to it was part of our general work on how to bolster the U.S.-Israel security relationship, and we thought this was a way that would strengthen Israel’s military capabilities.”
Makovsky said CENTCOM officials did not reach out to JINSA to discuss its report, although it garnered some attention on Capitol Hill late last year. In December 2020, several Republican senators, led by Tom Cotton (R-AR), introduced legislation to study the transfer of Israel from EUCOM to CENTCOM. Within a month, before the bill even got a hearing, the legislation was moot.