Western capitals punish Jerusalem while Riyadh coordinates

Faced with continuous missile strikes from Houthi forces along the Red Sea, Saudi Arabia turned to Washington for direct military intervention. When the United States refused to strike, the kingdom quietly leaned on American coordination to broker defense intelligence sharing directly with Israel.

I'm Daniel.

And I'm Shira. This is another episode of Crosswinds, a Daily Lion production, where we trace the relationships that decide what happens to Israel next. Today we are looking at covert intelligence coordination between Riyadh and Jerusalem, Washington approving stealth fighters for the Saudis alongside munitions for Israel, Paris hosting border talks over southern Lebanon, European nations criminalizing West Bank commerce, and trilateral defense integration in Athens. And then, for our members, we go deep on why Rabat ignores street protests for weapons.

Houthi forces in Yemen have pushed rapidly along the Red Sea coast. They're seizing territory near the Bab al-Mandeb chokepoint and firing missiles deep into Saudi Arabia. In response, Riyadh asked Washington to intervene directly with offensive military strikes. The United States refused.

Right, instead of American air power, the United States Central Command stepped in to broker a different kind of assistance. CENTCOM facilitated quiet, bilateral talks between the defense chiefs of Saudi Arabia and Israel. They focused on sharing Israeli military intelligence to help Riyadh defend its infrastructure.

For Israel's security establishment, this intelligence sharing is exactly how regional integration is built. The argument here is that formal diplomatic breakthroughs are less important than the practical security architecture being assembled under American supervision. The United States military recently brought regional partners together. They convened a meeting in Germany with representatives from Israel, Saudi Arabia, the U A E, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan and Egypt.

What is that architecture actually built on?

This quiet coordination is the foundation of a resilient alliance against Iranian proxies. Long before any official ties with the Gulf were announced, Israel built thousands of smaller connections through intelligence-sharing and cooperation. That groundwork has proven durable. This latest engagement coincides with the six-year anniversary of the Abraham Accords. Those US-sponsored normalization deals between Israel, the U A E, Bahrain, and Morocco were signed on September fifteenth, twenty twenty. The research center BICOM points out shared threats are cementing these relationships, not fracturing them. Economic ties remain robust. Israeli-Emirati trade grew eleven percent between twenty twenty-three and twenty twenty-four, totaling three billion two hundred million dollars, excluding software and government sales deals. The shared necessity of defending against Iranian aggression ensures Israel's strategic presence in the region will only grow stronger.

A very different view comes from those on the right, who see a dangerous collapse of American deterrence. When Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman called President Trump last Thursday, September tenth, to ask for American air strikes on the rampaging Houthis, he was turned down. The White House claimed it's focused on protecting our core national security interests, like ensuring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea. They want to empower our regional partners to take the lead. For those on the left, this leaves Riyadh isolated. The six hundred billion dollars that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman committed to investing in the US in his deals with Trump last year bought almost zero protection from the world’s military superpower.

What does that isolation cost them in practice?

In under two weeks, Iran and its Yemeni proxy militia effectively checkmated Saudi Arabia by severing two of its three vital oil-exporting routes. With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed since the war with Iran began in late February, Tehran and its proxies now hold a hand on both of the region’s maritime throats. The Jewish Press warns this withdrawal harms Israel. The economic threat is severe. Fifteen to twenty percent of global trade passes through the Red Sea, and the Houthis sitting on the Mandeb Strait certainly gives Iran leverage. Riyadh doesn't want to trade dependence on Washington for dependence on an Israeli security architecture. As one source admitted, nobody has deterrence over the Houthis. Not the Americans, not us, and certainly not the Saudis. They're the dark horse nobody expected.

On the other side of the debate, regional skeptics argue that Washington is right to avoid entanglement in another proxy war. The case here is that the United States has no obligation to serve as a mercenary force for Gulf monarchies. You know, this reluctance isn't new. After the September twenty nineteen attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq and Khurais oil facilities, which the US attributed to Iran, Trump was pressed to retaliate against Tehran. He refused then, and the administration is maintaining that same boundary now.

How are they handling the threat without military force?

Instead of military escalation, the focus is on diplomatic containment. The United States already established a framework with the militia. They reached a ceasefire in May last year after bombing the group for two months to halt attacks on Red Sea shipping. That channel remains open. In the meeting, which one source said took place on Sunday, the Houthis told US officials they had no intention of attacking American vessels. From this perspective, direct intervention would only drag American forces into a localized conflict the combatants are trying to limit. The former president justified his refusal to strike by explaining the rebels called us, and let us know they don’t want to fight with us. The conclusion is regional powers must take responsibility for their own defense, rather than expecting external powers to fight their battles.

The immediate crisis in the Red Sea forces a broader reckoning about the limits of American power in the Middle East. What's at stake is whether regional states can build a self-sustaining security architecture, or whether the withdrawal of a global superpower inevitably leaves the maritime chokepoints vulnerable to whoever is willing to fire first.

The United States State Department has authorized two massive arms transfers to its primary Middle Eastern partners. They're advancing both packages simultaneously. Officials in Washington signed off on a multi-billion dollar sale of stealth fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. The transaction clears a major hurdle in Riyadh's long-standing effort to acquire the advanced fifth-generation aircraft.

Yeah, at the same time, the administration is moving forward with a separate weapons package for Israel. That consists of tens of thousands of heavy munitions. Both deals now face mandatory congressional review periods. Lawmakers get thirty days to review the Saudi sale and fifteen days for the Israel agreement.

For the State Department, these parallel transfers are about reinforcing key regional partners against shared threats. They want to do that without destabilizing the Middle East. The administration formally approved the proposed sale of forty-eight F-thirty-five fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. That package is valued at twenty-four point three billion dollars. The request from Riyadh also includes forty-nine Pratt and Whitney engines for the aircraft fleet. The official justification rests on strengthening a vital non-NATO ally. The State Department announced the stealth fighters will improve Saudi Arabia's capability to deter current and future threats. They strengthen homeland defense and improve interoperability with US forces.

What else do they say the planes will do?

They added the new planes will augment operational aircraft. That enhances air-to-air and air-to-ground self-defense capability. This follows a separate five billion dollar military sale approved earlier in the month. Providing advanced aviation to an Arab partner inevitably raises questions about Israel's regional superiority. The administration insists the balance holds. The State Department maintained this proposed sale will support US foreign policy and national security objectives. It improves the security of a major non-NATO ally. Addressing the legal requirement to protect Israeli advantages, they concluded the proposed sale of this equipment and support won't alter the military balance in the region.

The view from the Israeli security establishment, you know, looks at the same aircraft sale and sees a direct threat to the country's qualitative military edge. The defense ministry has already purchased fifty of the jets. That happened in two procurement rounds that occurred in twenty sixteen and in twenty seventeen. While the military awaits its full complement, the prospect of a neighbor matching that capability is causing alarm. Currently, almost all of them are on the ground in Israel.

What are they doing to expand the fleet?

The defense establishment is expanding it. They announced they'd be procuring twenty-five more of the planes. Those are slated to begin arriving in twenty twenty-eight. For Israeli officials, any transfer of this technology to Riyadh can't happen in a diplomatic vacuum. The government's position is that providing these advanced fighters needs to be subject to Saudi normalization with Israel. Without a formal peace agreement and ironclad guarantees that Israel will maintain its technological superiority, the defense leadership views the Saudi acquisition as an unacceptable erosion of their strategic advantage.

In Washington, those on the left are mobilizing. Representative Gregory Meeks is obstructing the two point eight billion dollar bomb sale to Israel. The transfer covers forty thousand individual heavy bombs. That includes twenty thousand each of America's MK-eighty-four and BLU-one-seventeen bombs, and an equal number of bunker-busting I-two-thousand penetrators. Meeks calls them some of the most destructive in our arsenal. He questions how they could be used in densely populated areas of Gaza and Lebanon. The package dwarfs a controversial two point zero four billion dollar sale in twenty twenty-five.

What are people on the right saying about it?

Right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson warns the new bombs the Trump administration is sending will be used to do the same in Lebanon. He says they'll likely be used in other countries in the region. That means if you wanted to extend the Iran war into the indefinite future, this is exactly what you'd do. With thirty-six Democratic senators recently backing a resolution against a smaller transfer, Meeks argues they haven't provided sufficient assurances. He says they haven't shown the Netanyahu government will use them in accordance with U.S. law and with appropriate civilian protections. The hold reflects Congress’s responsibility to ensure U.S.-funded weapons are used lawfully, responsibly, and with meaningful safeguards for human life. Opposing the Saudi sale, lawmakers warn Beijing has spent decades stealing American intellectual property. They argue our intelligence community is warning it could put the crown jewels of American military technology within reach of the Chinese Communist Party.

The simultaneous advancement of these transfers tests the limits of Washington's defense industrial base and its diplomatic leverage. The question now is whether the executive branch can push through a massive regional rearmament over the objections of its own lawmakers. It also tests what precedent that sets for the Middle East's balance of power.

French President Emmanuel Macron hosted defense leaders from Lebanon, Jordan, and Western nations in Paris this week to discuss the future of the Lebanese border. The immediate catalyst is the clock running out on the United Nations peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, whose mandate expires at the end of twenty twenty-six. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun arrived seeking international financial and military support for his country's armed forces, alongside proposals for a transitional border security arrangement with Israel. The talks center on how to fill the impending security void and who will control the territory once the current framework ends.

Emmanuel Macron argues international backing has to strengthen Lebanon's sovereignty and enable it to fully ensure its security. He calls a sovereign and stable Lebanon a decisive step toward peace and stability for the entire region, adding allies have to support the Lebanese Armed Forces, which are, you know, indispensable for asserting the authority of the Lebanese state across its entire territory. The Lebanese presidency reported progress in drafting proposals for the Security Council regarding the future of the international presence in southern Lebanon. With just under seven thousand five hundred peacekeepers leaving, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun warns what matters is there's no vacuum. He wants a temporary replacement until the Lebanese army can deploy, repeating that exact timeline.

Who is he willing to accept in that replacement force?

He accepts any composition, saying it poses no problem whether it's European, non-European, American, another United Nations force, Asian, or a mix of European, Arab and Asian forces. He insists allies have to share the responsibility of supporting the army and strengthening the Lebanese state. Aoun says the state will disarm Hezbollah without a confrontation, a rule he repeated. After a Lebanese civil war that killed a hundred and fifty thousand people, he argues the objective isn't a confrontation and they're determined to resolve this issue peacefully. He adds this isn't about building a state at the cost of a bloody conflict or a new civil war. He says they have no choice but negotiations because the alternative is war, which would be very costly for them, suggesting a border deal could be a prelude to a later peace agreement, but they can't jump directly to a peace agreement.

Look at the security map from the Israeli side, and the reliance on the Lebanese army looks like a dangerous illusion. For Israeli defense strategists, the Lebanese state is currently incapable of disarming Hezbollah on its own, making an immediate withdrawal an unacceptable risk. To secure the north, the military established an Israeli security zone that currently stretches about six miles into Lebanon. The Middle East Forum argues that this buffer has to remain under Israeli control until Hezbollah is completely dismantled, because handing territory to an unready Lebanese force simply invites Iranian proxies to return. The scale of Hezbollah's entrenchment requires direct military action that Beirut can't provide. The Israeli army has been methodically clearing the border area, recently demolishing an Iranian-funded complex, built over two decades.

What did they find inside that complex?

That single underground facility contained more than two kilometers of tunnels and command and weapons storage facilities. In this view, Israel has to retain the operational freedom to destroy these high-level military assets directly, rather than trusting a pilot zone approach where the Lebanese army is supposed to clear the infrastructure but routinely fails to do so. Instead of waiting for a comprehensive peace treaty, this camp proposes a strict division of labor between the two countries. Israel handles the military dismantling of Hezbollah's physical infrastructure, while the Lebanese government takes responsibility for dismantling the group's parallel civilian and financial state. By degrading Hezbollah's ability to provide welfare and housing, Israel gives Beirut the opening it needs to step in and reclaim the loyalty of its citizens. Only after that coordinated effort removes the shared enemy can the two nations build the trust required for normal neighborly relations.

Right. The question now is whether a credible international force can actually be assembled before the current mandate expires. If a coalition materializes, Lebanon might secure the breathing room it needs to assert control. If it fails, Israel will likely dictate the border's security architecture on its own terms, leaving the Lebanese state on the sidelines.

European capitals are moving from symbolic boycotts of Israeli settlements to concrete legal penalties. In Oslo, legislators are advancing a bill that would criminalize commercial trade with Israeli communities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. At the same time, the British government is preparing to enforce its own import bans on settlement goods, acting alongside eleven other nations. In Jerusalem, the government responded by advancing a new housing tender in the E1 corridor and shutting down diplomatic coordination with British personnel.

For the governments driving these measures, the goal is to cut off what they describe as the supply lines of British finance and construction that allow settlement expansion to continue. British officials argue they're purposefully targeting illegal settlements to increase pressure on Jerusalem and keep the hope of peace alive, rather than holding the Israeli public responsible. The British import bans are expected to take effect within six to nine months. The leadership in London insists it's more important than ever that Britain stands for something, warning that the international community won't stand by as the occupation proceeds. It's a coordinated European effort, with twelve nations signing a statement to introduce or consider bans on settlement goods.

What kind of penalties are they attaching to those bans?

In Norway, the proposed legislation carries potential prison sentences of up to three years for intentional trade violations involving these communities. Officials there argue domestic support for a boycott has grown stronger because the situation in the West Bank has become even worse. They contend Israel has become far too accustomed to intimidating Western countries by calling them antisemites if they criticize Israel for abuses and violations of international law, and that this protective cover is now gone. The underlying argument in European capitals is that preserving a two-state solution is the only viable path to regional stability. Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband believes acting jointly with international partners gives the sanctions regime a chance to succeed. From this perspective, the current Israeli government's attempt to eliminate a two-state solution is actively making the country less secure.

Look at the same diplomatic clash from the Israeli right, and the response is a historic shift toward active deterrence against foreign interference. The government's position is that any foreign power attempting to force a Palestinian state upon Israel will face direct retaliation. To exact a price for the British sanctions, Jerusalem barred twelve British figures from entering the country as part of a broader package of diplomatic countermeasures. The message to any government seeking to harm the country is clear: those who act against Israel will be acted against, and hostile steps won't remain unanswered. Alongside the diplomatic expulsions, the government is accelerating construction to secure its territorial hold. A new tender for two thousand one hundred and sixty-seven housing units was issued for the E1 settlement expansion plan.

What does that bring the total to for that area?

This addition brings the total number of recently announced housing units in the area to three thousand four hundred and one. Bidding for this tender is scheduled to open on October twenty-fifth, just two days before the parliamentary election. Opponents point out this timeline is designed to create an increasingly irreversible reality on the ground ahead of the elections, an outcome that aligns exactly with the coalition's goals. For this camp, relinquishing control of the territories is viewed as a severe security threat that can't be compromised to satisfy European demands. The leadership maintains an uncompromising stance that an Iranian-controlled Palestinian state won't be established in Gaza or in Judea and Samaria, period. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar warns that any government acting against the country will lose its influence and relevance in the region.

The dispute now tests whether European economic pressure can actually alter Israeli policy, or whether it simply accelerates the very territorial expansion it aims to stop. With both sides treating the issue as a core national interest, the question is how far the diplomatic rupture will widen before either capital blinks.

The diplomatic map of the Eastern Mediterranean is being redrawn into a hard military frontier. Israel, Greece, and Cyprus are rapidly locking together their air defenses, naval operations, and intelligence networks to secure the energy corridor running from the Levant to Europe. The catalyst for this integration is Ankara. Athens and Jerusalem signed a massive new missile defense pact. After that, Turkey dispatched its intelligence chief to deliver a set of ultimatums against militarizing the Aegean Sea. Now, the three allied capitals are accelerating their joint command structures to meet the threat.

For defense officials in Athens, Nicosia, and Jerusalem, Turkish regional expansionism is a direct threat to their sovereignty requiring an integrated military response. The three governments used their tenth trilateral summit in Jerusalem last December, you know, to pledge deeper security cooperation. That architecture is now being built. On August thirty-first, Greece and Israel finalized a massive bilateral defense accord. The agreement is valued at approximately three billion one hundred million euros. It establishes an integrated air and missile defense network for Greece using Israeli interception technology. Days after the summit, military planners also signed a joint action plan for two thousand and twenty-six to expand their naval and aerial combat exercises.

What is driving that rapid integration?

It's driven by the reality that Ankara is actively mobilizing for conflict. Turkey is building an arc of forty commando brigades from Eastern Thrace along the Anatolian coast to occupied Cyprus. The Turkish government is also building shelters and civil defense infrastructure across all eighty-one of its provinces. That signals they view war as a concrete possibility, not an abstract concept. The only viable response to that posture is collective deterrence. Linking Israeli military technology with Greek and Cypriot geography reduces Turkey's naval and aerial advantage. Facing intense political pressure and maritime disputes, the Greek government is hardening its rhetoric. They assert their inalienable national right to extend their territorial waters to twelve nautical miles. They calculate appeasement has failed. Only a formidable defense axis can secure their maritime borders against Turkish revisionism.

Look at the same escalating tensions from the perspective of the Turkish government, and the trilateral defense alignment is an unacceptable provocation. On August twenty-eighth, two thousand and twenty-six, the head of Turkey's national intelligence organization made an unannounced diplomatic visit to Athens. The intelligence chief met privately with the Greek prime minister. He delivered four diplomatic messages directly from the Turkish president. The core of the warning was that Ankara won't retreat from its maritime stances. They won't permit the bolstering of defenses on the islands, and they won't tolerate the strategic alignment between Athens and Jerusalem. For Ankara, the aggressive militarization of the Aegean and the introduction of advanced Israeli missile systems are direct infringements on Turkish maritime interests.

What do they want Greece to do?

The Turkish leadership insists that Greece must immediately halt the deployment of new weapon systems to its islands. The president has explicitly warned Athens to remember historical conflicts in the region. The phrase he uses is a very good guide for those who draw lessons from it. In this view, Turkey's maintaining a necessary defensive posture against an aggressive encirclement. Those on the right argue that Greece has paid a heavy price for past retreats. I mean, they point to Cyprus in nineteen seventy-four and Imia in nineteen ninety-six as proof that only military resolve can secure the region.

The Eastern Mediterranean is no longer just a diplomatic theater. It's an active military frontier. The question now is whether this web of missile pacts and joint naval fleets will successfully deter Ankara from pressing its maritime claims, or whether the buildup itself will trigger the very conflict the three allied capitals are preparing for.

This is the members' deep dive on why Rabat ignores street protests for weapons.

In December twenty twenty, Israel and Morocco established diplomatic relations. They anchored their bilateral agreement in the broader regional architecture of the Abraham Accords. That normalization wasn't a spontaneous gesture of goodwill. It was secured by a massive, highly transactional geopolitical concession. The United States agreed to officially recognize Moroccan sovereignty over the disputed desert territory of Western Sahara. That delivered a diplomatic victory Rabat had sought for decades, in direct exchange for the Arab nation's formal recognition of Israel. For the news media from coast to coast, the agreement between Israel and Morocco looked like a historic breakthrough with credit to the Trump administration.

Does the partnership actually date back to that agreement?

No, the alliance that the Moroccan public is currently protesting wasn't created four years ago. It's merely the formalization of a covert military and intelligence partnership. That relationship has been operating continuously, and often violently, since the early nineteen sixties. To understand how this relationship survives the unprecedented fury of the Moroccan street today, the history of that shadow alliance is the only place to start.

Look, in the years immediately following its independence, the Moroccan monarchy found itself surrounded by hostile forces and deeply vulnerable. The throne faced intense, existential pressure from the revolutionary pan-Arab nationalism championed by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. He routinely sought to topple conservative regimes across the region. At the exact same time, Israel was aggressively pursuing its Periphery Doctrine. That was a strategic imperative designed to build covert ties with non-Arab or moderate Arab regimes that shared mutual adversaries. The two states needed each other to survive, and they built an invisible bridge to ensure they did. The defining episode that cemented this mutual reliance and permanently wedded their security establishments occurred in September nineteen sixty-five. Arab heads of state and senior military commanders convened in Casablanca for a summit to prepare for a coordinated war against Israel.

What did the Moroccan king do about that summit?

Morocco's King Hassan the Second deeply mistrusted his fellow Arab leaders, and he took an extraordinary risk to monitor their intentions. According to former Israeli Military Intelligence director Shlomo Gazit, speaking to the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, the Moroccan monarch explicitly invited the Israeli intelligence services to bug the conference.

Yeah, and the logistics of the operation required absolute complicity from the host nation. Acting on the King's direct orders, Moroccan authorities designated an entire floor of the luxury Casablanca hotel where the summit was taking place exclusively for a joint team of Mossad and Shin Bet operatives. After the Arab leaders departed, King Hassan handed the Mossad copies of the secret recordings from all the closed-door military planning sessions. Those were promptly transcribed and translated into Hebrew by the research unit of Israel's military intelligence directorate. That intelligence haul fundamentally altered the balance of power in the Middle East. The transcripts revealed to the Israeli high command that the Arab armies, and the Egyptian forces in particular, were in terrible shape and completely unprepared for a coordinated war.

How did the intelligence establishment view those recordings?

The director of the Mossad at the time, Meir Amit, later drafted a secret letter to the Israeli prime minister. He described the Casablanca bugging as one of the greatest moments of Israeli intelligence. That specific, unvarnished knowledge helped the Jewish state decimate the assailants' air forces within hours after the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian armies attacked Israel in the nineteen sixty-seven Six-Day War.

The partnership was strictly reciprocal, and the Moroccan palace quickly called in its favor. Before his disappearance, the Mossad located Mehdi Ben Barka in Paris on behalf of Moroccan intelligence. He was a leftist opposition leader who plotted to overthrow the king. Ben Barka was later trapped and killed by Moroccan operatives, and his body was never found.

Right, and that shared operational history laid the groundwork for massive demographic and diplomatic coordination over the following decades. Between nineteen sixty-two and nineteen sixty-four, the Mossad organized Operation Yakhin. That was a sprawling clandestine initiative that facilitated the migration of nearly one hundred thousand Moroccan Jews to Israel. To secure this exodus, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society paid King Hassan the Second a per-capita fee for every Moroccan Jew who was permitted to leave the country.

By the late nineteen seventies, the trust between the two security establishments was so absolute that it altered the diplomatic trajectory of the entire region. When Egyptian President Anwar Sadat began signaling a willingness to break the Arab consensus and seek an end to the conflict, Morocco served as the indispensable, trusted backchannel. The Mossad played an important role in this episode. Without its director, the meeting between Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan and Tuhami wouldn't have taken place.

Today, this deeply entrenched, six-decade-old architecture is managed by Mohamed Yassine Mansouri. He's the director of Morocco's external intelligence agency, the DGED. Mansouri was a classmate of Mohammed the Sixth at the Royal College in Rabat, and is described as an extremely reserved and discreet person. Because the DGED operates at the absolute highest levels of the royal palace, it's completely insulated from civilian legislative oversight and the democratic will of the elected government.

Under Mansouri's direction, the contemporary threats driving the alliance have shifted dramatically from secular pan-Arabism to the volatile Sahel corridor and the proliferation of jihadist networks. For both Jerusalem and Rabat, the primary shared target is the expanding proxy influence of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Morocco severed diplomatic ties with Tehran in twenty eighteen specifically because Iranian government agents were actively supporting the Polisario Front. That's the armed independence movement fighting Moroccan forces in the Western Sahara.

This is the central paradox of the Israel-Morocco relationship. The intelligence sharing regarding Iranian encroachment and West African networks is a supreme geopolitical imperative for the Moroccan deep state. That makes the alliance structurally impervious to the anti-Israel protests currently raging in Rabat and Casablanca. The crowds demanding an immediate end to normalization simply don't penetrate the encrypted channels between the Mossad and the DGED headquarters. That allows the security partnership to flourish entirely separate from public opinion.

As long as the alliance remained in the shadows, the Moroccan monarchy could easily manage the contradiction between its foreign policy and its public's sympathies. But the Abraham Accords changed the rules of engagement, transitioning the relationship from quiet espionage to massive, overt military procurement. The question now is what happens when a secret intelligence pact requires the highly visible purchase of Israeli drones, satellites, and air defense systems. Can the palace continue to hide a multi-billion-dollar military tether from its own citizens?

The visibility of the alliance reached its peak in New York on September sixteenth, twenty twenty-six. Israeli and Moroccan diplomats met on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly to formalize a massive upgrade to their partnership. They agreed to elevate their diplomatic liaison offices to full, permanent embassies. They're exchanging official ambassadors for the first time, almost six years after the two countries renewed relations. The pact also set a timeline to take the necessary measures for the prompt reinstatement of direct commercial flights between the two countries by the end of the year. For those in the center, the formal transition to full embassies demonstrates that the strategic partnership is firmly anchored in fundamental national security interests. It can withstand broader regional volatility.

As detailed by the Arab Center Washington DC, Morocco agreed to formalize ties with Israel in direct exchange for a massive concession. In July twenty twenty-three, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sent a letter officially recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over the disputed Western Sahara.

Why is that recognition so important to them?

For the Moroccan monarchy, securing international recognition of its sovereignty over the Sahara is the absolute defining metric of national success. They've fought the Algerian-backed Polisario Front for control of the territory since Spain withdrew in nineteen seventy-five. That diplomatic backing from Jerusalem unlocked the final political barriers to total military integration between the two states. It allowed the relationship to transition from covert intelligence sharing to massive, overt military procurement.

The structural framework for this open procurement was laid in November twenty twenty-one. Then-Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz made a historic, fully uniformed visit to Rabat to sign a groundbreaking Memorandum of Understanding. It was the first defense agreement Israel had ever signed with an Arab nation. It allowed for smoother cooperation between their defense establishments, making it easier for Israel to sell arms directly to the North African country.

Yeah, with the legal and political channels open, Morocco began a massive reorientation of its military procurement strategy. They're increasingly favoring Israeli defense contractors over their traditional European and American partners. Between twenty twenty and twenty twenty-four, Israel became Morocco's third-largest source of defense imports. They represent eleven percent of all procurements, placing them just behind France.

The scale of the hardware moving across the Mediterranean is vast. Morocco finalized a one billion dollar contract with Israel Aerospace Industries to acquire two Ofek thirteen reconnaissance satellites. They replace older systems that Morocco had previously acquired from a consortium of French, Italian, and German companies.

What do those new satellites actually do?

These new satellites are equipped with synthetic aperture radar technology. That allows high-resolution imaging that can penetrate vegetation and soil to detect hidden ground features in any weather condition. On the ground, satellite imagery confirms that Morocco has completed the deployment of the advanced Israeli-made Barak MX air defense system at the Sidi Yahya base northeast of Rabat. That deal was signed in February twenty twenty-two for approximately five hundred million dollars. Morocco also purchased the Spider air defense system from Rafael to create a multi-layered shield against regional missile threats.

The acquisitions extend into precision strike capabilities and local manufacturing. I mean, Morocco procured the PULS multiple rocket launcher from Elbit Systems in a deal worth one hundred and fifty million dollars. That's being deployed this year. The partnership has even moved into domestic Moroccan production. A specialized industrial facility in Benslimane associated with Israel's BlueBird Aero Systems was established to produce SpyX loitering munitions.

This integration is designed for the long term. The two militaries recently signed a joint military work plan for twenty twenty-six. They're prioritizing long-term force development, strategic planning, and defense coordination over short-term tactical cooperation. The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates Algeria's twenty twenty-six defense spending at roughly twenty-four and a half billion dollars. That compares with about seven point eight seven billion dollars for Morocco. Morocco's growing integration of Israeli air defense, unmanned systems, and networked capabilities is steadily narrowing some of the technological advantages that Algiers historically enjoyed.

As analyzed by the Middle East Forum, the strategic geometry of the Maghreb is actively fracturing. The escalating regional tension reached an unprecedented diplomatic breaking point on September tenth, twenty twenty-six. Algeria abruptly severed diplomatic relations with the United Arab Emirates.

What did they actually do?

They ordered the Emirati ambassador to depart within forty-eight hours and announced immediate airspace restrictions. The rupture came amid longstanding, deepening disagreements over Israel, Western Sahara, and Abu Dhabi's expansive regional influence. That underscores how the Israeli-Moroccan security partnership is forcing regional powers to choose sides.

Beyond the heavily fortified walls of the defense ministries, you know, the alliance is anchored by massive economic gravity. It's specifically the geopolitics of fertilizer. Morocco and the Western Sahara control more than seventy percent of the world's phosphate reserves. That's a critical resource for global agriculture valued at approximately fifteen trillion dollars.

In June twenty twenty-six, the White House declared a national emergency to temporarily suspend certain anti-dumping and countervailing duties on phosphate fertilizer imports from the Kingdom of Morocco. Writing in Ynetnews, Amine Ayoub argues that this suspension represents far more than a minor adjustment to American trade schedules. It's a powerful, calculated affirmation of the strategic trilateral alliance linking the United States, Morocco, and Israel. The move delivers an unambiguous message to the broader region that peace and diplomatic integration with Israel yield substantial, concrete economic benefits. A financially secure and strategically confident Morocco serves as a vital bulwark against Iranian encirclement strategies and extremist networks operating across the Sahel.

But look, while the hardware secures the borders and the diplomatic treaties hold firm in New York, the monarchy still has to govern the people living inside the country.

The Moroccan public watching the images out of Gaza has turned overwhelmingly against the diplomatic architecture their government built, as Moroccan approval of normalization fell from thirty-one percent to thirteen percent. The polling indicates that twenty-six percent of Moroccans view the events in Gaza as a massacre, and twenty-four percent view them as a war.

Yeah, the Moroccan Front for Support of Palestine and Against Normalization has mobilized tens of thousands of citizens. The Front is a massive, broad-based coalition comprising leftist political factions, labor unions, human rights organizations, and deeply conservative Islamist groups, and they're joined in their political opposition by the Islamist PJD party. They called for nationwide protests from September twenty-fifth to twenty-seventh against the government's decision to deepen ties. The organization circulated a flyer urging an end to normalization and rejecting an Israeli embassy in Morocco. The Front argued that diplomatic normalization can't legitimately occur with an entity practicing occupation, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. They asserted that Palestine isn't a bargaining chip and that normalization won't negate Palestinian rights or Moroccan popular solidarity.

That mobilization brought significant numbers into the streets, as around ten thousand demonstrators marched in Rabat demanding an end to ties with Israel. Most of those protesters appeared to be Islamists marching with men and women separated, waving Palestinian flags and holding placards. Protesters at the march demanded a boycott of brands they consider supportive of Israel. Sunday's march was co-organized by leftist groups and the outlawed but tolerated Adl wal Ihsan Islamists.

The Moroccan authorities manage this fury through a strictly policed division between symbolic expression and material disruption, permitting large weekend solidarity marches as a domestic safety valve. Security forces strictly penalize any direct economic obstruction, though. In November twenty twenty-three, thirteen activists staged a boycott sit-in at a Carrefour in Salé. The activists demanded it adhere to international law by ceasing direct or indirect support for the Israeli military and settlement-operating companies.

How do the security forces respond to an obstruction like that?

Following the sit-in, authorities violently arrested the activists before releasing them later that day. They were prosecuted under public assembly laws for organizing an undeclared demonstration, convicted, and given six-month suspended prison sentences. UN Special Procedures mandate holders determined that the actions constituted acts of civil disobedience in compliance with international human rights law.

The monarchy also enforces political discipline at the highest levels, operating within a system where King Mohammed the Sixth and his palace maintain full dominance through a combination of substantial formal powers, informal lines of influence in state and society, and ownership of crucial economic resources. In July twenty twenty-two, Human Rights Watch reported that Moroccan authorities had constructed an ecosystem of repression to silence dissidents. The Royal Palace previously reproached the PJD following the party's criticism of relations with Israel, suggesting an attempt by the palace to limit its ability to mobilize support around the issue.

Look, to survive the domestic backlash, the King relies on his constitutional status as Commander of the Faithful. He also serves as the chairman of the Al-Quds Committee. Leveraging this religious authority, Morocco's foreign ministry demanded that the legal, religious, and historical status of Jerusalem be respected following tensions on the Temple Mount. The monarchy frames normalization as a functional conduit to deliver Palestinian aid, maintaining that its diplomatic ties with Israel serve to aid Palestinians despite widespread domestic protests against normalization.

The most potent demonstration of that pragmatic framing occurred when traditional aid routes via Egypt were severely bottlenecked, as the United Nations has continuously warned that famine is imminent in Gaza under the Israeli siege. Relief agencies report that only a small portion of the supplies required for Gaza's two point four million residents has successfully entered. America's controversial and inefficient campaign to airdrop food to Gaza proved fatal after five Palestinians were killed.

Right, so in March twenty twenty-four, Morocco flew forty tons of food aid directly to Ben Gurion Airport. The food aid was transferred to the Palestinian Red Crescent at the Kerem Shalom crossing. Morocco was the first nation permitted to use this direct overland military route.

Where does that military route actually run?

The Israeli road used for the aid run extends from near Be'eri to the Gaza coast, and the supplies were subjected to security inspection by Israeli authorities at the crossing before heading to northern Gaza. The spokesperson for the World Food Programme claimed that the convoy delivered enough food for twenty-five thousand people to Gaza City. Israeli media characterized the facilitation of Moroccan aid through Israeli airports and under military supervision as a Ramadan gift from Netanyahu to Morocco.

Morocco claims to be the first nation to transport humanitarian aid using this specific land route, a bid to diversify aid routes into the war-battered territory. A subsequent forty-ton medical shipment was sent via the same corridor in June twenty twenty-four. The humanitarian shipment consists of surgical equipment, medicine for children, and supplies for treating fractures and burns. In the Middle East Policy Council, Youssef Jajili notes that a single Moroccan aid convoy brought more meals to Gaza than ten US airdrops. The argument follows that the Abraham Accords only carry true meaning if signatory nations actively use them to safeguard Palestinian rights.

That pragmatic defense is heavily supported by a demographic and historical reality that the state actively embraces, as the twenty-eleven Moroccan Constitution officially recognizes the country's Hebraic roots. A ceremony honoring the Moroccan monarchy took place on September seventh at the Museum of Tolerance Jerusalem. Royal adviser André Azoulay was awarded The Torch of Abraham at the ceremony for advancing tolerance between Israel and Morocco.

What is his background in the diplomatic service?

He's spent more than thirty years promoting dialogue between Jewish and Muslim communities, overseeing heritage sites, and co-founding Bayt Dakira in twenty twenty. He argues that there's no alternative path to security for Israelis and Palestinians other than living side by side in peace. Every fall since two thousand and three, the adviser also organizes the Atlantic Andalusia Festival which draws an interfaith crowd celebrating dance, music, food and arts from Jewish and Muslim communities from around the Mediterranean region. Furthermore, the state promotes cultural bridges with the estimated eight hundred thousand Israelis of Moroccan descent, actively encouraging their return for tourism and pilgrimage.

The architecture of the relationship relies on this separation between the state's strategic interests and the public's ideological fury. The military secures its borders, while the palace uses its religious standing and diplomatic access to manage the domestic fallout. The question that remains is whether this balancing act will hold, or whether the street will eventually force the King's hand.

What's being tested here is the resilience of an alliance anchored strictly in regime survival, diplomatic claims over Western Sahara, and advanced military hardware against the widespread fury of the Moroccan public.

Does popular outrage eventually reach a point where it threatens that regime survival?

That is the core calculation for Rabat. The monarchy wagers that tens of thousands of demonstrators in the streets can be managed through cultural diplomacy and religious authority, provided the military continues to secure its borders with Israeli air defenses, drones, and intelligence.

An answer would come if the domestic costs of normalization, whether measured in severe civil unrest or political instability, finally outweigh the tangible benefits of American recognition and Israeli defense technology.

Until those fundamental state interests crack, the partnership between Jerusalem and Rabat will remain insulated from public affection, driven entirely by the cold calculus of regional defense and sovereign survival.

That's the view from here. Crosswinds is a Daily Lion production. Don't forget to tune in to the other Daily Lion shows: Sixty One, All Fronts, and Tribe & State. See you next Tuesday.