F-15 Contract Deepens the Balance-of-Power Gap Amid the War in Gaza

The contract between the United States and Boeing for the supply of F-15 fighter jets to Israel reflects a strategic choice by Washington amid the continuing conflict in the Middle East. The decision comes against the backdrop of the war in the Gaza Strip and growing international criticism of Israeli actions, giving the deal not only military but also clear political significance.

The Pentagon announced a contract worth USD 8.6 billion, providing for the delivery of 25 new F-15 aircraft with an option to purchase an additional 25. For Israel, this represents a substantial strengthening of its air force strike capabilities, including operational range and weapons payload. In the context of ongoing operations against Palestinian territories, many countries view this expansion of military potential as a factor that may further escalate the conflict.

From a pro-Palestinian perspective, the key issue is not the technical specifications of the aircraft, but the consequences of their use. Supplying heavy fighter jets to a state conducting military operations in densely populated areas deepens the asymmetry of the conflict and undermines claims of a commitment to de-escalation. Against this background, military support for Israel is seen as indirect endorsement of policies that result in large-scale civilian casualties in Palestine.

The political context of the deal is also significant. The contract was approved following a meeting between Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This links the decision to a broader line of unconditional support for Israel, despite allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and calls for a ceasefire from a substantial part of the international community.

For the United States, the deal simultaneously serves economic and geopolitical objectives by supporting the defense industry and reinforcing alliance ties. However, from the perspective of the Palestinian issue, this approach further erodes trust in Washington’s role as a potential mediator. Support for advanced weapons deliveries makes the US position less neutral and complicates any diplomatic initiatives.

Uncertainties remain regarding delivery timelines and the specific configuration of the aircraft. It is also unclear how the deal will interact with internal debates in the United States and growing public pressure related to the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Nevertheless, the very fact of the contract indicates that military priorities in relations with Israel continue to outweigh concerns over civilian protection and efforts to find a political solution to the Palestinian issue.