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.” 

The Senate voted down Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-VA) war powers resolution that would have blocked additional U.S. military action against Iran on Friday evening, with nearly all Democrats voting in favor of the resolution, and almost all Republicans voting against it.

The resolution failed, 53-47, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) being the only Republican to vote in favor and Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) being the only Democrat to vote against. 

Kaine said in an address prior to the vote that while he acknowledged the need for U.S. military engagement in certain instances, any offensive actions required the approval of the legislative branch.

 “The United States needs to defend itself and it needs to work with allies to help them defend themselves,” Kaine said. “But our troops, our sons and daughters, deserve to have wise civilian leadership that only make the decision to send them into war on the basis of careful consideration and a debate before the entire public.”

The Virginia senator, who has long been a champion of enforcing Congressional war powers, argued the president does not have the authority “to go on offense against another nation or an entity like a terrorist group.”

In response, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the most vocal supporters of the strikes in the Senate, said that requiring congressional approval would be a “disaster for the country” and upend the military command structure.

“Since the founding of this country, it’s been understood that the commander in chief can act, as the commander in chief, to protect our nation from threats — that he is in charge of the military. He’s the civilian in charge of the military, and it’s his decision to use military force,” Graham said. He noted that Congress has only declared war five times but engaged in hundreds of military actions, and said Congress can cut off funding for military operations if it does not agree with the executive.

“Just think of the chaos that would ensue in this country if there were not one commander in chief, but 535,” Graham reiterated, adding that the reaction from Congress to the strikes and conflicting intelligence about their efficacy shows that Congress would not be able to act decisively if consulted. 

He said it would not be practical for the administration to have to wait for Congress to act in response to a future nuclear facility or threat to U.S. forces, “and that’s not what the founders meant.”

Several Senate Republicans who backed a similar resolution in 2020 following the U.S. strike that killed Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Gen. Qassem Soleimani voted, this time, against the resolution. That list included Sen. Todd Young (R-IN), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Jerry Moran (R-KS).

Collins noted in her statement that Iran had “threatened to attack Americans on our own soil and around the world” after Israel launched its operation to take out its nuclear program. She also said she supported the strikes and the subsequent ceasefire, both of which made it “the wrong time to consider this resolution and to risk inadvertently sending a message to Iran that the President cannot swiftly defend Americans at home and abroad.”

“I continue to believe that Congress has an important responsibility to authorize the sustained use of military force. That is not the situation we are facing now,” Collins said. “The president has the authority to defend our nation and our troops around the world against the threat of attack.” 

Lee said that determinations around war powers are “heavily fact-dependent.”

“We got a classified briefing yesterday. The totality of the circumstances that they outlined, including the finality of the action they’d taken — there’s no ongoing operations there,” Lee said.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), one of the Senate’s most vocal pro-Israel Democrats, said in a statement that she hopes the strikes are successful in the long-term, that Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons, that the U.S. must defend its personnel and that she would “continue to back Israel should it need to respond to a break in the agreement.”

“At the same time, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war and authorize any offensive attacks on other sovereign nations,” Rosen said. “The decision to go to war and put our troops in harm’s way is one that cannot be made lightly, and must be made by Congress, which is why I voted today to advance the War Powers Resolution.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who has advocated for a more restrained approach to U.S. foreign policy, dismissed arguments that the War Powers Act was applicable to the strikes ordered by Trump, which he called “an Article II matter.”

“I think, probably, the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. Some parts of the War Powers Act are kind of closer questions, but I think this is actually not very hard. I mean, if a president, any president of any party, cannot order one-off, limited military strikes without the approval of Congress, why do we have Article II?” Hawley asked.

“Go back and read the debates, and exactly what the framers did not want was foreign policy by committee, so I think this is not a close question. You can be opposed to the strikes and still be like, ‘Wow, this is not a good idea, this resolution,’” he told JI, adding that Trump was “100%” acting within his constitutional authority.