Netanyahu Seeks to End U.S. Financial Aid to Israel Over Decade

Benjamin Netanyahu sat down with CBS News in his first American broadcast interview since the war began eleven weeks ago, and what emerged was a portrait of a leader recalibrating Israel's most fundamental relationship—the one with the United States. The conversation ranged across the grinding conflict with Iran, the separate campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the diplomatic possibilities that might emerge if the Iranian regime weakens or falls. But the most striking moment came when Netanyahu proposed something that would have been unthinkable a generation ago: that Israel should wean itself entirely from American military aid.

The current arrangement sends $3.8 billion to Israel each year. Netanyahu told the interviewer he wants to phase that out to zero over the next decade, beginning immediately. "I want to draw down to zero the American financial support," he said. "I think that it's time that we weaned ourselves from the remaining military support." When pressed for a timeline, he was clear: start now, complete it in ten years, don't wait for the next Congress. The proposal reflects Netanyahu's awareness that American public opinion has shifted sharply against Israel. A recent Pew survey found that 60 percent of U.S. adults now hold an unfavorable view of the country—a jump of nearly twenty percentage points in just four years.

The erosion of support stems largely from the Gaza war, where more than 70,000 people have been killed according to the Hamas-run health ministry, a figure that includes both civilians and combatants. Netanyahu attributes much of the reputational damage to social media, which he calls the eighth front of the war. He argues that hostile actors have manipulated platforms to spread narratives about Israel's conduct, and that the geometric rise of social media correlates almost perfectly with the decline in American support. Yet when asked directly whether Israel's own tactical or strategic mistakes in Gaza and the West Bank have contributed to the negative impression, he acknowledged they have. "In war, armies sometimes miss and civilians die," he said. "These are mistakes, these are not deliberate things that happen."

On the military front, Netanyahu insisted the war with Iran is not over. Nuclear material remains in Iranian hands, enrichment sites stand intact, and the proxy network that Iran has built across the region—Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis—still poses a threat. When asked how highly enriched uranium would be removed from Iran, he offered a blunt answer: "You go in, and you take it out." He declined to specify whether that would happen through agreement or force, or whether it would involve Israeli or American special forces. What he did say, citing President Trump's stated willingness, is that it can be done physically if there is an agreement in place.

Hezbollah presents a separate problem. Hours before the interview, Israel had targeted Iranian-backed Hezbollah operatives in Lebanon. Netanyahu made clear that even if Iran agrees to a ceasefire, he will not accept one that leaves Hezbollah intact and able to continue firing rockets at Israeli cities and communities. Iran, he suggested, wants to link the two conflicts—a ceasefire in one theater conditional on a ceasefire in the other. Netanyahu rejected that framing. If the Iranian regime weakens or collapses, he argued, the entire scaffolding of the terrorist proxy network collapses with it. "It's the end of Hezbollah, it's the end of Hamas, it's probably the end of the Houthis," he said. But he stopped short of predicting that outcome. Is regime change in Iran possible? Yes. Is it guaranteed? No.

Before the war began, according to a New York Times investigation, Netanyahu had presented a more optimistic case to President Trump in the Situation Room on February 11. The Times reported that Netanyahu made a hard sell, suggesting Iran was ripe for regime change and that a joint U.S.-Israeli mission could finally end the Islamic Republic. Netanyahu disputed the characterization, saying he had always noted the uncertainty and risk involved. Both he and Trump, he said, understood that there was danger in action but greater danger in inaction. On the question of whether the Strait of Hormuz would be choked off by a weakened Iran—a concern that has become more acute as the fighting has continued—Netanyahu said the problem became understood as the war went on. It was not necessarily misread at the beginning, he suggested, but the risks involved took time to become apparent.

Netanyahu also signaled that the conflict has opened unexpected diplomatic doors. He said he is hearing from Arab states—not all of them, but some—expressions of interest in strengthening ties with Israel, driven by the belief that such alliances deter Iran and create opportunities for economic cooperation in energy, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing. These conversations, he indicated, go beyond what was possible before October 7th. The prime minister was careful not to reveal specifics, but the implication was clear: the war has accelerated a realignment in the region that benefits Israel's strategic position.

On the question of his own role and reputation, Netanyahu pushed back against the perception that he hungers for conflict. Before October 7th, he said, he was considered perhaps the most restrained prime minister in Israeli history—politically tough but militarily cautious. That changed when Hamas attacked, which he characterized not as a discrete assault but as an attempt by the Iran axis to annihilate Israel through what he called a noose of death. His response, he said, was to declare that the Middle East would change, that the condition in which multiple actors ganged up on Israel thinking they could wipe out the Jewish state would not stand. "Not on my watch," he said. The war, in his telling, is not a choice but a necessity—a fight for survival that will reshape the region if Israel prevails.