There are various points of view on a controversial section 219 within the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) bill that passed the House of Representatives last night and is heading to the Senate.

Section 219 (formerly Section 224) is part of the Fiscal Year 2027 NDAA. It directs the Secretary of Defense to designate a Pentagon executive agent responsible for overseeing the United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative, which aims to accelerate joint research, development, testing, evaluation, and industrial cooperation between the U.S. and Israel in defense technologies; specifically: missile defense, counter-drone systems, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, quantum computing, directed energy, biotechnology, and autonomous systems.

Many people are mistakenly viewing this section as a merge of the military; that’s not the case.  The issue is specifically about joint collaboration on missile defense systems and drone technology.  Secretary Marco Rubio was asked about it today.  Rubio’s response is outlined below:

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you know the Senate better than most anybody. They’re debating the new military policy bill right now after the House passed it. One of the more controversial topics is about fusing the U.S. and Israeli military when it comes to co-production on things. Do you have any sovereignty concerns about that, if there are situations where the United States wants to send weapons? Iron Dome came up with Ukraine when the Israelis —

SECRETARY RUBIO: You’re asking about NDAA? Yeah, I mean, that – largely the Department of War manages that legislative portfolio, so I’m aware of the provision you’re discussing that involves cooperation on technology. And look, at the end of the day, the truth is we do that with countries all over the world.

QUESTION: So you support it?

SECRETARY RUBIO: I mean, if somebody – well, I haven’t read the specific provision in terms to tell you in detail. I understand – I understand the topic, though, because it’s not new. On air defense, for example, we’ve long cooperated with the Israelis. Look, if we have a breakthrough in our system or they have a breakthrough in theirs, we could share that in a way to improve our own systems as well. So if they’ve come up with some novel way of defeating drones, for example, of course we would want to have that and benefit from it. By the way, they’re not the only country in the world that we would do that with. We do that with other countries as well.

So I think that’s the provision you’re referring to, and that’s something we’re already doing. I mean, that’s something that already exists. But I don’t think there’s – that’s different from sovereignty. I mean, it’s not like U.S. forces are going to come under the command and control of a foreign general or anything of that nature.

QUESTION:  But when Ukraine was asking for Iron Dome, the United States and some lawmakers, including Lindsey Graham, wanted the U.S. to send Iron Dome battery that was in the East Coast.  Netanyahu vetoed that – that was co-production – he vetoed that —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well – yeah, yeah, but any time you enter into co-production, we have those restrictions too.  I mean, if we provide weaponry to a country and it’s part of an agreement, they can’t transfer that to a third country without our approval.  That’s – we do the same thing.  And Israel’s not the only country in the world that does it.  Other countries do it with their systems as well.  That’s just a normal way – when you do arms sales, part of the restrictions is you get to veto them passing it on to a third country.  That’s not just us or Israel; it’s every country.

{SOURCE}

{SOURCE}

 

Share