Eighteen American service members are dead. More than 400 are wounded, many with traumatic brain injuries. And Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich just called this arrangement "the best for us."
Smotrich toldlet loose the very telling statement that "the current situation, where there is a confined campaign between Iran and the United States, is the correct [situation] and best for us." He added that "when it comes to the state of Israel, there is no interest in joining the campaign." No interest. Not "we're working on logistics." Not "we're coordinating behind the scenes." No interest.
The war with Iran started in late February 28. American operations have focused on Iranian naval forces and coastal defenses. Israel has not participated in recent American strikes on Iran.
But if you thought Smotrich's admission was callous and rude, he wasn't done. The Finance Minister laid out the strategic logic plainly enough, "We need to remember that our objective in the campaign...is to destabilize, weaken [Iran] to the point of overthrowing the regime." Our objective. Achieved with American pilots, American sailors, and American tax dollars.
Watch him admit this outrageous statement for yourself...
Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, framed it as smart positioning. "Israel's best move is to not move, yet...Washington does the striking. Israel keeps its fire," Dubowitz said. That's an American think tank leader endorsing the arrangement where we absorb the casualties and they conserve their resources. Shameful.
President Trump, for his part, has seemed unbothered by the dynamic. He said Israel "would join in two minutes if I ask them to" but added, "We don't need anybody." Which is a confidence-inspiring statement right up until you remember the 400 wounded Americans who might have appreciated somebody.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, has been issuing his own threats — directed at Iran, not in coordination with American forces. "Do not count on there being calm if you attack us," Netanyahu warned. "The previous response was powerful enough, but any further attempt to harm us will be met with a different response, far more powerful." Strong words from the sideline.
None of this is about whether the Iran campaign is justified. Reasonable people can disagree on that. The question is simpler: when a foreign official publicly describes American blood and treasure as the optimal scenario for his country — while his country contributes nothing — what exactly is the alliance providing in return?
Some will point out that Israel faces its own security threats and needs to preserve military capacity. That's the argument Smotrich himself is making. But preserving your military capacity while your ally spends theirs isn't an alliance. It's a subscription service.