1. The relationship remains structurally strong – especially on security assistance and technology – but is experiencing visible tactical friction over Gaza’s post-war governance architecture and “who gets a seat at the table.” Generally speaking, Washington’s expectations are shifting toward reciprocity, burden sharing, and coalition manageability.

2. Iran is the strategic center of gravity. It is the arena where U.S. and Israeli interests converge most clearly, and where miscalculation carries the highest cost.

3. Gaza represents  both a political and a coordinating test. It can generate public friction and process breakdowns, but it does not replace Iran as the alliance’s strategic backbone.

4. The durability of  U.S. domestic support is under significant strain among younger cohorts, including within the American political right. These developments demand a clearer understanding of shifting American sensitivities, which should shape how Israel must adapt in order to sustain long‑term support.

5. Israel’s move toward gradual military independence can strengthen national resilience if executed as “aid-to-contract,” not as isolationism. It must be structured to deepen, not dilute, U.S. defense-industrial incentives and further embolden Israel’s public image in the US as a viable ally that bolsters American national security.

6. Israel is a “model strategic ally” for the U.S. under Trump’s worldview.

Key Deltas Entering 2026