On Sunday, May 10, CBS aired Benjamin Netanyahu’s interview on 60 Minutes—one of his first major appearances on American television since the outbreak of the war with Iran.
The discussion covered Iran’s nuclear programme, the fate of the Ayatollah-led system, and the region’s broader outlook.
But the most striking moment came elsewhere: the prime minister said he intends to gradually phase out US military financial aid, aiming to reduce it to zero over the next decade.
"I want to reduce American financial support, the financial component of our military cooperation, to zero. Because we receive $3.8 billion a year… it's time for us to abandon the remaining military support," Netanyahu said in response to host Major Garrett's question about whether it's time for Israel to reconsider its financial relationship with the US.
He added that he had already discussed the issue with Israeli officials and President Trump, and claimed their “jaws dropped in amazement.”
The remarks landed with impact—but the key question remains: how accurate are they, and who were they really intended for?
Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of US foreign aid since World War II, receiving more than $300 billion in economic and military support from Washington (adjusted for inflation) since 1948.
Under an agreement signed in 2016, the US committed to providing Israel with $38 billion in military aid through 2028, including $5 billion for missile defence programmes.
Netanyahu clarified that he would like to begin reducing financial support immediately and implement the plan over the next ten years, saying he believes the process could proceed very quickly.
This is not Netanyahu’s first such statement.
On January 9, 2026, in an interview with The Economist, he spoke of his desire to “gradually phase out” military aid to zero—at the same time that negotiations were underway on a new ten-year package to replace the current agreement after 2028.
Meanwhile, the actual scale of assistance is even larger.
In addition to the basic package, in April 2024, the US Congress approved an emergency military aid package worth $8.7 billion, of which $5.2 billion was earmarked for strengthening Israel’s air defence systems: Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and the Iron Beam high-power laser system.
In January 2025, Israel signed the first contract under this package with Rafael Advanced Defense Systems.
Why now?
Behind the statement lies not just rhetoric, but political arithmetic.
According to a Pew Research Center poll conducted from March 23 to 29, about a month after the start of the US-Israel war with Iran, 60 percent of American adults now hold an unfavourable view of Israel—up 7 percentage points from a year ago and nearly 20 points from 2022.
The share of those viewing Israel “very unfavourably” has nearly tripled, from 10 percent in 2022 to 28 percent today.
The majority of Democrats (84 percent) and Republicans (57 percent) under 50 currently hold negative views of Israel. In 2025, this figure stood at 50 percent among young Republicans and 71 percent among young Democrats—a 13-point increase in one year.
“The trend is not just alarming – it is existential,” says Udi Sommer, professor of political science and director of the Barak Center for Leadership at Tel Aviv University.
“If the generation that inherits the American government views Israel with skepticism or hostility, the bipartisan consensus that has anchored Israel’s security for 75 years will collapse,” Sommer says.
Netanyahu, with a keen understanding of American society and its domestic political dynamics, clearly recognises that broad segments of the US public—including within the conservative camp—are increasingly unwilling to finance other countries’ security.
Both the Republican movement and progressive currents within the Democratic Party increasingly converge on a similar position: America must invest in America.
The statement provoked polarised reactions.
Zionist Senator Lindsey Graham supported the idea, arguing that an accelerated aid cut would be entirely feasible. “Israel has a booming economy,” he said, signalling the country’s ability to adapt.
At the same time, Israeli politicians—particularly Yair Lapid—urged caution, pointing to the financial consequences for Israeli citizens and the importance of aid for sustaining the Israeli-American lobby.
Critics see the statement less as a strategy and more as a calculation.
Netanyahu’s message, they argue, is aimed as much at Washington as at Tel Aviv: an attempt to defuse growing American irritation over the scale of military aid—especially within the MAGA base, which is increasingly calling for funds to be spent domestically rather than abroad.
Israeli media has openly acknowledged that waging war without US support would be extremely difficult.
However, economic analyst Yuval Azoulay noted a year earlier that when Netanyahu hinted at a possible refusal of aid during the Gaza war, he faced resistance from the military.
Trump’s reaction is also telling: according to sources familiar with the discussions, the president initially responded to Netanyahu’s initiative with confusion and was slow to endorse it.
The answer is not only economic. It is also a broader geostrategic move, shaped by shifting dynamics within the United States, the lessons of Israel’s war in Gaza, and the maturation of Israel’s economy and national power, the Jerusalem Post writes.
However, the timing of an aid reduction is awkward and likely to be painful. The Israeli army must not only replenish missiles and ammunition used in the past two years of conflict, but also expand personnel amid ongoing security concerns.
Netanyahu intends to increase military spending by $80 billion over the next decade above pre-war levels, which would raise defence spending to 6 percent of GDP from 4.4 percent in 2022.
Netanyahu attributes the erosion of support primarily to social media, calling it the “eighth front of the war.”
A trump card that no longer works
Netanyahu’s announcement of Israel’s financial independence from the United States is both overdue and no longer capable of reversing growing anti-Israel sentiment in American society, Artem Kirpichenok, a historian and publicist, tells TRT Russian.
“Netanyahu is trying to take the trump card from his opponents—many Americans believe that since the US funds Israel, it bears responsibility for its policies. But this step is too late, as sentiment is shifting not only among Democrats but also among Republicans,” Kirpichenok says.
According to him, Republicans have long viewed Israel as an instrument of US Middle East policy—but the war with Iran has disrupted that logic.
“Let’s not forget Christian Zionists, who have certain eschatological views related to Israel. After the war with Iran, it’s no longer the US that is using Israel, but Israel and Netanyahu that are manipulating the US and Donald Trump. This does not satisfy a significant portion of the Republican electorate—and the rift within the party is evident,” he says.
Kirpichenok argues that Israeli society itself is undermining efforts to improve the country’s image in the United States, particularly among American Christians.
“Israel can’t stop Ben-Gvir and Smotrich from committing shocking acts, like the gallows-shaped cake made for Ben-Gvir’s birthday. It can’t stop every Israeli soldier from insulting Christian holy sites in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories—and this hurts the feelings of Christians in the United States,” he says.
Relations between Netanyahu and Trump, according to the historian, have also cooled sharply, with the US president feeling misled after the Iran campaign failed to meet expectations.
“Netanyahu misled Trump about Iran’s military potential and the possibility of a military campaign. And a number of Israeli strikes—against Tehran and Hezbollah—were carried out either without American approval or were notified at the last minute,” Kirpichenok says, adding that there is “no talk of a breakdown in American-Israeli friendship,” and that Netanyahu will attempt to repair ties that are experiencing “a certain decline”.
Kirpichenok considers a complete US withdrawal of financial support for Israel unlikely, citing the depth of historical ties.
“I find it difficult to imagine the United States abandoning funding for Israel, because throughout Israel’s history, the United States—first through the Zionist movement and then through American political figures—has provided financial assistance to the country. This is a long-standing US project in the Middle East, existing since the 1940s, alongside the Saudi project,” he says.
He also argues that Israeli policy is now closely tied to Trump, making long-term predictions difficult.
“Currently, Israeli policy is built around the current pro-Israel President Trump, from whom Netanyahu and his ministers want to get the most. We don’t know what will happen in ten years, nor what will happen in ten months,” he says.
On Israel’s long-term dependence on US aid, Kirpichenok says attempts to build alternative partnerships—with China, the European Union, and even Russia—have largely failed.
“The current situation has cut off a significant portion of these contacts. Israel, on the contrary, has increased its dependence on the US—and it cannot establish full military autonomy: even during the fighting in Gaza, a shortage of artillery shells and air defence missiles quickly developed,” he says.
Looking ahead, he warned that Netanyahu’s successors could be even more radical.
“The current generation of Israeli politicians is far less educated, but far more radical, than their predecessors. Sooner or later, Netanyahu will leave the political scene—and who will take over is a big question,” Kirpichenok tells TRT Russian.
Equal partership
Netanyahu’s statement about Israel’s readiness to finance its own security without American aid sounded almost casual—but there is more to it than budgetary arithmetic, Emmet Imani, Ambassador for Peace at the UNESCO Peace Center and expert in global governance, international security, and risk management, tells TRT in Russian.
According to the expert, it reflects a quiet acknowledgement that the political atmosphere around US–Israeli relations is shifting in a way Jerusalem can no longer ignore.
“People often reduce the US–Israeli alliance to the annual military aid package—currently around $3.8 billion. But the relationship has never been about money alone,” he says.
The real architecture runs much deeper: intelligence cooperation, weapons compatibility, diplomatic cover at the UN, access to US military technology, joint missile defence systems, and regional coordination against Iran.
“This is not a transactional agreement where one side writes checks, and the other cashes them.”
When asked about the realism of Netanyahu’s statement from a defence-budget perspective, the expert says it is, first and foremost, a political signal driven by an attempt to get ahead of events.
“There’s a huge psychological difference between ‘we no longer need this aid’ and hearing from Washington one day ‘we are no longer prepared to provide it.’ One image conveys self-sufficiency, the other waning influence and strategic vulnerability. Countries care much more about their image than they admit—especially those whose deterrence is partly based on perception,” he says.
The expert notes that US support has always created leverage, and Israeli leaders have been fully aware of it.
“The United States has occasionally slowed arms deliveries, exerted covert pressure during disputes over Israeli settlements, or used military coordination as a tool to influence Israeli decision-making during periods of regional escalation. Not constantly and not always publicly—but enough for the Israeli leadership to understand the limits of dependence,” Imani notes.
On domestic Israeli politics, Imani points to the ideological layer behind the statement, rooted in historical memory.
“Israeli strategic culture was shaped by historical memory long before the emergence of the modern state. A deeply ingrained belief in some Israeli political thought is that Jewish survival ultimately cannot rely on guarantees from external powers, no matter how friendly they may seem.
“History has taught this lesson harshly and repeatedly. That is why Netanyahu’s words sounded as ideological as they were pragmatic,” he says.
On how the statement will be read in Washington, Imani warns that such signals carry particular weight in the Middle East, where adversaries are watching closely.
“If America were ever perceived as distancing itself first—even symbolically—adversaries across the region would study it very closely. Tehran, Hezbollah, Hamas would study it. Such signals matter in the Middle East—sometimes even more than the material realities themselves,” he says.
Ultimately, the expert says Netanyahu is not rejecting the US alliance but attempting to redefine its psychological structure. However, the feasibility of this shift remains uncertain.
“He’s not rejecting the alliance with America—not even remotely. But he’s trying to redefine its psychological structure. Fewer patrons and client. More of an equal partnership. Israel wants to stand alongside America, not beneath it. Perhaps this is less a declaration of independence than a strategic hedge against a future no one fully trusts anymore,” Imani tells TRT Russian.
Both experts agree that Netanyahu’s statement is driven less by budgetary considerations than by an attempt to manage perceptions—domestic and international.
Israel seeks to project strength before it is perceived as vulnerable. Whether this strategy succeeds will become clear not in years, but in the coming months.
This story was originally published on TRT Russian.
