By Liam Collins
On January 15, 2021, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it would shift Israel from the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) area of responsibility to the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility. The press release attributed the Abraham Accords as providing the “strategic opportunity for the United States to align key partners against shared threats in the Middle East.”
Is this simply a line change on the Pentagon’s map, or does it portend substantive changes for U.S.-Israel military relations? The answer is both. This shift does not fundamentally change relations at the strategic level, but it does better align the Pentagon’s Geographical Combatant Commands (GCC) with the geopolitical realities that exist in 2021. The initial transition may have disruptions, as responsibilities shift from the staff of one GCC to another, but in the long term, being aligned with the most appropriate GCC should result in greater efficiencies and effectiveness that indirectly improve US-Israel military relations.
The Pentagon reviews its Unified Command Plan every two years, so it is important not to make too much of this change, yet to also understand that it is more than cosmetic. With its biennial review, it is not uncommon for the Pentagon to move a state from one GCC’s area of responsibility to another, or create entirely new combatant commands, based on the changing geopolitical situation. In 2004, President Bush moved Syria and Lebanon from EUCOM to CENTCOM, and in 2008, the Pentagon established U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). Thus, periodic changes are the norm, rather than the exception.
This realignment should allow for a more unified regional approach by better aligning the Pentagon’s GCCs with the U.S. Department of State’s regional bureaus. The State Department’s Bureau of Near East Affairs includes the countries in the Maghreb, Levant, Arabian Peninsula, and Iran. Previously, this meant the regional bureau had to coordinate with three different GCCs – AFRICOM, CENTCOM, and EUCOM – for regional issues. Moving Israel to CENTCOM means the bureau only needs to coordinate with two; making it easier to plan and execute theater security cooperation strategies.
The realignment also better aligns both GCCs with their strategic interests. Israel’s security challenges are fairly unique from the rest of EUCOM, so transferring Israel allows EUCOM to focus on its primary threat, Russia, and other strategic interests, in which Israel has always been somewhat of an outlier. On the flip side, Israel figures prominently in the campaign plans and the theater security cooperation and engagement plans for CENTCOM. The Abraham Accords should offer new regional security opportunities for Israel, in which CENTCOM is well positioned to facilitate.
Some have argued that shifting Israel to CENTCOM will put too much of a “burden” on the CENTCOM staff. Not only has its commander, General Frank McKenzie, stated that he expects “little impact on day-to-day operations,” but logically, it should actually reduce the burden on his staff. To coordinate regional security issues, CENTCOM must involve Israel, regardless of the area of responsibility in which Israel resides, so CENTCOM can now engage with Israel directly instead of working through EUCOM. Thus, realignment should produce more efficient mil-to-mil coordination.
In the short term, no doubt, some disruptions in the mil-to-mil partnership can be expected due to the fact that partnerships are built on personal relationships – to include, sometimes, relationships between the GCC commander and senior policy officials – as much as they are on formal agreements. So, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) will have to establish relationships with new people and staffs who they likely do not know and may lack expertise on Israel and the IDF, but the gains will more than offset any short-term hiccups. CENTCOM staff officers know the region, understand the threats, and have relationships with other militaries in the region, including Abraham Accords signees like the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. These relationships and regional expertise are far more important to Israel than a relationship with, for example, a Scandinavian military.
Moving Israel into the CENTCOM area of responsibility is simply the most recent move to create a more unified regional approach. This alignment has been 15 years in the making and better aligns both CENTCOM and EUCOM for their respective geopolitical threats and strategic interests. Once again, this change will not fundamentally change the nature of the US-Israel military relationship, but it will allow CENTCOM to better coordinate the security efforts of Israel and other nations within the region.
Col. Liam Collins is the Executive Director of the Viola Foundation and the Madison Policy Forum and a permanent member with the Council on Foreign Relations. A retired Special Forces Colonel, Liam served in a variety of special operations assignments and conducted operational deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, the Horn of Africa and South America. Read full bio here.