Progressive Democrats Succeed in Removing $1 Billion Iron Dome Funding From Bill

[Beastly Boy]

83. The considerations for military aid to Israel go beyond pure number crunching.

As I mentioned, not funding Iron Dome poses the risk of destabilizing Israel, with dire consequences to the entire region. The alternative to cutting this funding is to risk the necessity to throw far more money at a whole bunch of vulnerable Sunni states in order to resist Iran's expansion of its sphere of influence. Furthermore, the calculus you are proposing is based on today's situation. Iran is capable of making it irrelevant in a matter of days. Should Iran escalate, Israel will not be able to keep up by taxing its citizens or increasing their military budget by 0.3% of GDP

Also, there are benefits to the US in maintaining this funding. It gives the US addition leverage in influencing Israel's political decisions in ways that benefit US interests, not just Israel's. Iron Dome is currently deployed in a bunch of US military bases abroad, with Israel supplying its own research and development to maintain and improve those systems. It is likely a money saver for the US defense budget. And, as I mentioned before, Iron Dome is an effective deterrent to Iran's attempts to expand its influence in the region, which benefits the US and its arab allies.

Iron Dome is a fairly small piece of a complicated Middle East puzzle, and arguing whether Israel can afford to fund Iron Dome all by itself overlooks the bigger picture. Consider the funding of Iron Dome an insurance policy that the US is paying to maintain the political stability of the region and keeping the region within its sphere of influence.