If future historians seek to examine the relationship between the US and Israel through Operation Roaring Lion, and detach it from its broader historical context, they could be mistaken. A narrow view might create the impression of unprecedented closeness, but it is precisely the longer perspective that makes it possible to understand how complex and multilayered this relationship has been since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.
Broadly speaking, the relationship can be divided into two main periods: the first, from the establishment of the state until the early 1970s, and the second, from the early 1970s until the past decade.
During the first period, US presidents did not view the State of Israel as a true ally, and at times even feared that close ties with it would undermine their efforts to build a regional alliance system against Soviet expansion. During his 15 years as prime minister, David Ben-Gurion visited the US three times, but was never invited to an official meeting with an American president. The US administration also sharply criticized Israel's reprisal operations and the Sinai Campaign.
Only in the early 1970s did the relationship begin to change, although even then it did not become a straight line of ever-growing closeness. American presidents helped lead significant peace agreements, while at the same time criticizing Israeli policy in various arenas. For decades, the two countries maintained a broad security assistance agreement that helped cement the Israeli Air Force's superiority. In practice, however, a clear separation remained: strategic cooperation, alongside avoidance of direct involvement on the battlefield.
The current reality is fundamentally different. For the first time, there is visible coordination, and at times even integration, between the two military systems. In other words, if in the past the US stood by Israel, today it is more present inside the decision-making process itself. This is not necessarily a single dramatic shift, but rather the accumulation of processes that together create a new reality. From a historical perspective, this is a significant development, one that requires careful examination rather than momentary enthusiasm.
But from here the question arises: How can this honeymoon be extended beyond the present moment? There is an opportunity here to shape a new format for the relationship. From the professional military perspective, when each side recognizes the other's strengths, continued cooperation appears possible, and even necessary.
This is precisely where the fundamental question becomes sharper: How should the boundaries of the partnership be defined? Deep cooperation creates clear advantages, but it requires a precise distinction between coordination and dependence, and between accompaniment and leadership. The tighter the ties become, the greater the need to redefine the point of balance between partnership and independence.
It is impossible to know who will lead the US in the future, but one thing is clear: Strategic relations cannot rest on momentary circumstances or personal dynamics alone. They require a stable institutional foundation, one that enables deep and lasting cooperation without obscuring one basic principle: the ability of a sovereign state, even in moments of closeness, to define the boundaries of its own decision-making.
