When the United States unleashed the GBU-57 “bunker buster” on Iran’s fortified nuclear sites during the recent Middle East conflict, it didn’t just send shockwaves through the Middle East.

Although Trump made it clear that the strike was to serve American interests, and not Israel — many still claimed Trump acted on Israel’s behalf. This reignited an old debate here at home: Why, exactly, is America so committed to Israel?

For critics, the answer is always the same: shadowy influence from pro-Israel lobbying groups, with AIPAC cast as the chief culprit. It’s the same tired script — a blend of conspiracy and double standard — that’s been dusted off for decades with one recent example being the 2003 Iraq War.

But the reality, if we take the time to look, is starkly different: this alliance is one of the most mutually beneficial relationships in US foreign policy. It strengthens US security, boosts the US economy, and reflects hard-earned historical lessons about what happens when the Jewish people are left defenseless.

The Numbers Tell the Story

A 2016 RAND Corporation study found that for every dollar America spends on overseas security commitments, it gains roughly three dollars in economic return. US military alliances aren’t charity — they’re investments. And the US–Israel partnership is a textbook example.

Former CIA leaders have called Israel’s intelligence sharing the equivalent of “having five CIAs” working for us — a force multiplier against threats like Iran’s nuclear program and global terrorism. Israel’s battlefield innovations in counter-terrorism and urban warfare have directly shaped US Special Operations tactics.

Our defense industries benefit, too. Israel’s real-world use of F-16s and F-35s has saved US manufacturers billions in R&D by identifying upgrades and fixes under combat conditions. Joint projects like Iron Dome don’t just protect Israeli civilians — 60–70% of US funding for those systems goes straight into American factories, supporting millions of jobs.

It’s true that AIPAC is a high-profile advocacy organizations in Washington. In the 2023–24 cycle, its Super PAC spent about $37.9 million, and its traditional PAC gave around $3 million directly to candidates. That’s large compared to other diaspora advocacy groups — but it’s neither secretive nor foreign-funded. Every dollar comes from US citizens, and every activity falls within American campaign finance law.

And AIPAC is hardly unique in concept. Armenian-American groups advocate for strong US–Armenia ties. Cuban-American PACs promote pro-democracy policies for Cuba. The difference is scale, not kind — and scale reflects donor engagement and organizational focus, not hidden control.

The Historical Imperative

If the alliance were only about economics and security, it would still be worth defending. But history gives it an even deeper resonance.

The modern Zionist movement took shape in the ashes of antisemitic violence long before the Holocaust. After the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, Russian Jews endured brutal pogroms and the May Laws, which stripped them of basic rights.

When they tried to flee, the West often slammed its doors. Britain’s 1905 Aliens Act targeted poor Jewish refugees. America’s 1924 Johnson-Reed Act imposed harsh quotas that shut out Eastern European Jews entirely.

By the time the Evian Conference met in 1938, as Nazi persecution intensified, 32 nations expressed sympathy but refused to meaningfully raise immigration quotas. The following year, the MS St. Louis — carrying over 900 Jewish refugees — was turned away by Cuba, the US, and Canada. Many passengers were later murdered in the Holocaust.

Even after 1945, Jewish survivors faced pogroms in Eastern Europe — the Kielce massacre of 1946 being the most infamous. It became clear that without a sovereign state, Jews would always be at the mercy of others’ borders, policies, and prejudices.

Israel in Global Context

The displacement that accompanied Israel’s birth in 1948 was tragic — but it was not unique. In the same post-WWII period, 14.5 million people were displaced during the India–Pakistan partition, and 12 million ethnic Germans were expelled from Eastern Europe. Around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled during Israel’s War of Independence; somewhat concurrently, roughly 850,000 Jews fled or were expelled from Arab and Muslim countries, most finding refuge in Israel.

Seen in that context, Israel’s founding fits into a broader historical pattern of population transfers aimed at resolving ethnic conflict — not as an unprecedented singular event.

A Partnership of Equals

Some in Israel now question whether US aid — $3.8 billion annually under the current Memorandum of Understanding — comes with too many strings attached. Likud MK Amit Halevi has suggested phasing it out to remove the leverage that Washington can exert on Israeli policy.

That’s a legitimate debate, and many in Washington, including at the Heritage Foundation, agree that the alliance should evolve toward a partnership of equals. But equal does not mean distant. It means recognizing the immense value each side brings — and ensuring the relationship continues to serve both nations’ interests.

The Iran strike wasn’t just a military operation — it was a real-time demonstration of what this alliance can do when the stakes are highest.

For America, the US–Israel relationship delivers intelligence, technology, and economic returns that far exceed its costs. For Israel, it offers a trusted partner that shares its democratic values and understands the lessons of history: that Jewish sovereignty is not optional, but essential.

In a world where both our nations face rising threats — from Tehran’s nuclear ambitions to the spread of terrorism — the case for this alliance has never been clearer.

Alexander Mermelstein, a recent USC graduate with a Master’s in Public Policy and Data Science, is an aspiring policy researcher focused on Middle East affairs and combating antisemitism.