Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was deeply dissatisfied with the memorandum concluded between the United States and Iran. In particular, the first and most problematic provision for Israel concerns Lebanon. It clarifies the nature of the new arrangement between the parties:

“Iran and the United States, together with their allies, declare an immediate and final cessation of military actions on all fronts, including Lebanon, and commit themselves not to initiate wars or military operations against one another, to refrain from threats or the use of force, and to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.”

To read this article in the following languages, click the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

The Israeli leadership strongly opposes this framework. Netanyahu argues that the new U.S.-Iran understandings regarding Lebanon undermine previous agreements reached with the administration of President Joe Biden in 2024. Under those arrangements, Israel retained the right to act against any threats posed by Hezbollah. The new memorandum limits Israeli freedom of action to cases involving direct and immediate threats. Furthermore, Israel has been excluded from the monitoring mechanism established under the agreement, while Iran has been included. According to Netanyahu, the memorandum fails to take Israeli interests into account.

Partners — But Only When Convenient

The Israeli government has made it clear that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of the memorandum and will continue to act according to its own national interests, particularly regarding Lebanon.

At the same time, the U.S. government has become increasingly disappointed with its Israeli ally. One indication of this tension is Donald Trump’s assessment of Netanyahu. Few political leaders have been publicly described by an American president as “damn crazy,” yet Netanyahu received precisely that characterization.

Overall, there are growing signs of a significant political rift between Washington and Jerusalem, one that could weaken the system of “special relations” that has defined bilateral ties for decades. The relationship has endured largely because both sides have consistently derived strategic benefits from it.

The United States provides Israel with extensive military and economic assistance through programs such as Foreign Military Financing (FMF). Under a 2016 agreement, Israel received $38 billion in military aid over ten years. Washington has also repeatedly protected Israel on the international stage, including through the use of its veto power in the UN Security Council to block anti-Israeli resolutions.

In return, Israel has served as a key regional ally in the Middle East. Its powerful military, sophisticated intelligence services, and advanced defense industry make it an exceptionally valuable partner.

However, there have been numerous occasions when Israel acted contrary to American preferences. Examples include settlement construction in the West Bank, the 1982 Operation Peace for Galilee, the 1981 destruction of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, and repeated airstrikes in Syria. While the United States criticized many of these actions, Israel proceeded according to its own calculations.

Today, even Donald Trump’s initiatives are evaluated in Jerusalem primarily through the lens of Israeli national interests rather than alliance obligations.

Allies Need Information

Analysts argue that Israel pursues an independent foreign policy guided by national interests while seeking to preserve its alliance with Washington and avoid open confrontation.

When disagreements arise, Israel may:

• Act independently if it considers an issue critical to national security;
• Utilize lobbying networks within the United States to influence policy;
• Seek compromises and alternative routes to achieve its objectives.

Such diplomacy requires extensive information gathering, and intelligence services play a central role.

It is well known that Israeli companies, including NSO Group with its Pegasus spyware, have sold technologies later used for surveillance, including against American officials. According to U.S. intelligence assessments cited by The New York Times, Israeli intelligence agencies may have monitored senior American officials, including presidential envoy Steve Witkoff. The report also identified Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby and his deputy Michael DiMino as possible surveillance targets.

As a result, the Pentagon reportedly raised the counterintelligence threat level posed by Israel to the highest category, described as “critical,” according to NBC News. Internal assessments detailed multiple incidents and concluded that Israel’s capabilities in both human intelligence operations and technical collection had reached a critical level.

American defense officials acknowledge that they cannot guarantee that sensitive information—even information originating from the Oval Office—will not eventually reach foreign intelligence services. Critics argue that if such disclosures align with Israeli interests, Israel would not hesitate to exploit them.

The issue extends beyond intelligence. During the 1980s and 1990s, Israel shared various military technologies with China, including missile guidance systems, radar components, and armored vehicle technologies. Although several major projects were later canceled under U.S. pressure—most notably an airborne early warning aircraft deal—Washington continues to express concerns that some Israeli exports could ultimately benefit countries regarded by the United States as strategic competitors.

Today, cooperation between Israel and China is concentrated in civilian sectors such as cybersecurity, healthcare, agricultural technology, and smart-city development, yet concerns remain within parts of the American security establishment.

Nothing Personal

Another area of disagreement between the United States and Israel concerns Ukraine.

Once again, Israel has acted according to its own interests. Unlike many European countries, Israel did not join sanctions against Russia and has maintained pragmatic relations with Moscow, particularly regarding security coordination in Syria to prevent direct military incidents.

Israel has also officially declined to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons or advanced air-defense systems. The stated reason is that Israel cannot significantly deplete its own military stockpiles without jeopardizing national security.

Although reports occasionally surface regarding indirect transfers through third countries, Israeli officials have consistently stated that no such policy decisions have been approved.

Despite these disagreements, the U.S.-Israel alliance remains intact. However, preserving its own strategic interests increasingly requires Israel to balance carefully between its allies, partners, and broader geopolitical considerations.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Alex Ksiądz is based in Poland.

Featured image is AI-generated via the author

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.