ByILAN POMERANC

JULY 8, 2026 15:36

Israel must deliver a clear and immediate rejection to any formal American request to move US military bases or assets from other regional locations into Israeli territory.

The same firm stance applies whether the proposal arrives through US Central Command channels or directly from the White House. Washington has obvious reasons for seeking such a relocation.

Operation Epic Fury, the American portion of recent conflict with Iran, highlighted capability shortfalls and exposure to asymmetrical threats that analysts had already identified amid today's multipolar world order.

Hybrid tactics used by Iran and similar actors, as well as by major powers such as China, create risks for other states including Israel and India.

American installations are widely dispersed and lack fully integrated multilayered defenses, leaving them especially open to effective strikes by both lower-tier and peer adversaries.

Iranian forces and their partners hit several important US sites across the Middle East and farther afield, including the British base at Akrotiri in Cyprus, and even attempted strikes on the strategic US-UK facility at Diego Garcia.

Those actions caused casualties among American personnel and destroyed valuable equipment and aircraft, adding billions in losses on top of the roughly 25 billion dollars spent on direct US offensive operations.

Washington therefore sees clear value in placing assets inside Israel, which operates the world's most advanced and combat-proven integrated air defense network.

Israel's advanced defense, security capabilities

This system, while not perfect, combines with additional defense layers to form a dynamic and constantly improving protective envelope around the country.

The United States seeks to gain shelter under that same protective structure.

Israeli thinking on any such request is shaped by four thousand years of national experience and past missteps.

These reflections come as the author arrives in Rome. More than two thousand years ago, the empire that later became Israel's greatest foe began as an ally when Rome partnered with the Maccabees.

After several decades of shared interests against Hellenistic rivals, the relationship collapsed when internal Hasmonean disputes prompted an invitation for Roman intervention.

General Pompey then brought Roman legions into the land under the pretext of resolving a dynastic conflict.

The warning remains relevant: biblical tradition and later history both caution against allowing foreign forces to establish lasting presence or influence that could undermine independence. The Hasmonean decision produced exactly that outcome and proved disastrous.

The United States remains a partner today, yet no alliance lasts forever, as recent shifts in American policy toward Europe and NATO have shown.

Long-term US facilities on Israeli soil could constrain responses to security threats whenever American interests diverge or when Washington seeks to protect its own personnel and equipment.

Such a presence would also strengthen misleading claims that Israel functions as a dependent client state and would invite immediate blame on Israel for any harm to US forces or assets.

Overall freedom of action, national pride, and Israel's standing as a military and technological leader would suffer lasting damage.

Should Washington seek more secure locations in the region, it can expand and reinforce existing facilities such as the British base at Akrotiri.

Additional hardening at Multinational Force and Observers sites in Sinai offers another practical and cost-effective path that could be executed more rapidly.

No foreign military should receive long-term or permanent basing rights on Israeli territory, as repeated lessons from history make clear.

The writer is an Israeli hi-tech entrepreneur and a member of the Israel Leadership Forum. He is involved with various Israel advocacy causes, including working with Christian Zionists as well as pro-Israel Noahide groups.