SAEDNEWS: Washington has approved a $510 million package of precision‑guidance kits for Israel’s bombs—citing shared security interests—just weeks after Tel Aviv’s unprecedented air campaign against Iranian nuclear sites.
According to Saed News, on June 30, the U.S. Defence Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress of a proposed $510 million sale of bomb‑guidance kits and related support to Israel. The announcement follows an intensive munitions expenditure by the Israeli military during its June 13–24 air campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities, which Tehran insists are devoted solely to peaceful energy production.
In its formal statement, the DSCA emphasized that the precision kits will “enhance Israel’s capability to meet current and future threats by improving its ability to defend … borders, vital infrastructure, and population centres.” The agency underscored that U.S. national interests demand a robust Israeli self‑defense posture.
While the State Department has signed off administratively, final congressional authorization remains pending—a process that typically triggers intense debate in both chambers. Critics on Capitol Hill may question the timing and scale of the sale, especially amid rising concerns over civilian casualties and regional escalation.
Supporters argue that precision‑guided munitions reduce collateral damage and act as a deterrent against hostile actors. “By upgrading targeting accuracy, these kits can help avoid unintended harm to noncombatants,” one defence expert noted. However, opponents warn that bolstering Israel’s arsenal risks fueling an arms race and undermining diplomatic efforts to de‑escalate tensions with Iran.
Israeli officials, for their part, view the sale as a reaffirmation of the “ironclad” U.S.–Israel security partnership. In response to Tehran’s recent strikes on al‑Udeid Air Base in Qatar and drone incursions, Israel has pleaded for expedited deliveries to replenish its war stocks.
As the transaction heads to Capitol Hill, lawmakers will weigh strategic imperatives against humanitarian and geopolitical concerns—an enduring dilemma in U.S. foreign‑arms policy.
