The Pentagon noted at the « critical » level its assessment of Israel’s threat of counter-intelligence, according to several American media citing current and former officials. This decision, attributed to the Defense Intelligence Agency, reflects an unusual concern in Washington: Israeli services would seek to monitor American officials engaged in discussions on Iran and in the conduct of regional crises. This Israeli espionage case occurs as the relations between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu spread around the war with Iran, Israeli operations in Lebanon and US diplomatic manoeuvres.
According to the American press, internal reports refer to attempts by senior officials, including the envoy Steve Witkoff, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby and one of his senior deputies, Michael DiMino. U.S. personnel stationed or travelling in Israel also reportedly discovered software capable of capturing their communications on their phones. Israel strongly denies any spying against American officials. The White House also rejected the story, while the Pentagon refused any detailed public comment.
A High Level Alert
The decision reported marks a threshold rarely assumed in an allied relationship. The « critical » level is the highest threat assessment in this type of assessment. It does not necessarily mean that a specific transaction has been publicly proven. It states, however, that US services consider the ability and willingness of a foreign actor to collect sufficiently high to impose enhanced precautions. In the Israeli case, this qualification is of particular significance, as it targets a strategic ally of the United States, who is the beneficiary of military cooperation and daily intelligence.
The Defense Intelligence Agency has reportedly issued an internal message in recent weeks with a multi-page analysis document. This document would describe incidents deemed to be of concern, without any full disclosure of its content. American officials quoted by the press believe that the activities attributed to Israel would exceed the level of spying expected, even between allies. In the intelligence community, the idea that a partner seeks to understand American intentions is nothing new. The novelty here lies in the intensity attributed to Israeli efforts and the sensitivity of the cases concerned.
The context explains in part this stress. The Trump administration is engaged in complex discussions with Iran, while still coordinating military and diplomatic actions with Israel. Washington is looking at whether to pursue a logic of armed pressure, open a negotiating framework or contain regional escalation. Israel, for its part, wants to understand how far the United States is prepared to go, including the resumption of operations against Tehran and the continuation of the Israeli campaign in Lebanon. This divergence creates favourable ground for suspicions of surveillance.
Israeli Espionage: U.S. Officials Cited
Steve Witkoff appears to be one of the most sensitive targets mentioned by the American media. Donald Trump’s emissary, he intervened on several crisis issues, including discussions with Iran and regional mediations related to Israel and Hamas. His position places him at the heart of diplomatic arbitration. Getting his communications, exchanges or even his agenda could make it possible to know the real intentions of the White House before their official announcement. In a negotiation, this type of information can change a balance of power.
Elbridge Colby occupies another strategic position. As senior political leader of the Pentagon, he is involved in the orientation of defence choices and the prioritization of US priorities. He is also identified as one of the supporters of a more restrictive approach to US commitments abroad. This profile may be of interest to Israel, especially in a period when Washington hesitates between extensive military support and the desire to limit the cost of a regional war. Michael DiMino, in charge of Middle Eastern affairs within the Department of Defence, is also a logical target for any service seeking to anticipate American decisions.
The reports quoted by the press would not be limited to names. They would also refer to practical vulnerabilities. United States officials would sometimes use personal telephones, private aircraft or travel circuits that are less secure than those provided by embassies. These habits can facilitate the work of foreign services, allies or opponents. In this type of environment, espionage does not always depend on a spectacular operation. It can be based on interception of a device, installation of software, proximity to a technical relay or operation of a security error.
Israel demented, White House minimizes
The Israeli embassy in Washington rejected the accusations in categorical terms. It states that Israel does not collect information about US entities or officials of the US government, and that its efforts are directed at its enemies, not its allies. This denial takes over an old line. Since the Jonathan Pollard case, Israel has officially claimed to ban its conduct of intelligence operations in the United States. That doctrine was to close a crisis that had permanently damaged confidence between the two security apparatuses.
The White House also denied the information reported. An American official described the story as false and questioned the knowledge of the sources cited. The Pentagon did not publicly develop the file. This distribution of responses is revealing. The White House is trying to prevent an open political crisis with Israel. The Pentagon avoids exposing its internal evaluations. The Israeli embassy protects a bilateral relationship with considerable military intensity, despite visible tensions between the leaders.
These denials, however, are not sufficient to erase the existence of malaise. The United States and Israeli media report that the new assessment could lead to more stringent precautions when travelling from United States officials to Israel, during meetings with Israeli officials and in the processing of electronic devices. There would be no question at this stage of a breakdown in intelligence sharing. Daily cooperation would remain intense, particularly on Iran. But a critical level alert changes behaviour. It requires a close ally to be considered an operational risk.
Telephones and listening devices
One of the most sensitive elements concerns the alleged discovery of surveillance software on telephones of US defence personnel present in Israel. These tools would have been able to capture communications. If these elements are confirmed, they would indicate a direct technical activity, not an open collection of political information. Mobile phones have become one of the major weaknesses of public officials. They contain messages, contacts, historical calls, documents, geolocations and sometimes traces of exchanges not intended for official circuits.
Israeli media also reported that earlier incidents would be included in American files. They refer to an attempt by Israeli officers to set up a listening device at the headquarters of the DIA in 2021, as well as another episode involving Shin Bet agents and a vehicle of the Secret Service. These claims remain sensitive and contested. However, they show that the debate is not just about the current war with Iran. It is part of a longer memory of mistrust, non-public incidents and internal rivalries between services.
In the intelligence world, spying between allies exists. States seek to understand the real intentions of their partners, especially when the decisions of these partners can engage their national security. But tolerance is not unlimited. It decreases when operations involve ongoing negotiations, identified politicians, personal telephones or government premises. It further decreases when an ally then uses information collected to influence an American decision, bypass an internal debate or mobilize political relays.
Iran in the centre of the arm
The Iranian case explains the current nervousness. Israel wants to prevent any diplomatic outcome that would leave Tehran with a military, ballistic or nuclear capability deemed dangerous. The Trump administration, despite its traditional support for Israel, also seeks to preserve its negotiating margins. The two allies therefore do not necessarily share the same timetable. Israel may want to strike before an agreement is reached. Washington may want to test a political solution before engaging further in an open confrontation. In this context, knowing American deliberations becomes a strategic issue.
Tensions are not just about Iran. They also include Lebanon. Israeli strikes continue despite ceasefire announcements, and Washington is trying to contain an escalation that could lead the United States deeper into the conflict. The differences between Trump and Netanyahu have increased in recent days, to the point that several media have reported a tense telephone exchange between the two men. This personal tension increases the value of internal information. Knowing what Trump accepts, refuses or postpones becomes essential for an Israeli government engaged on several fronts.
For Israel, the security argument is constant. It believes that Iran is an existential threat and that American hesitations can weaken the effect of military pressure. For some United States officials, on the contrary, Israel would seek to influence Washington’s decisions by supervising negotiating and planning officials. This accusation affects a sensitive point of American sovereignty. An ally can plead, inform, convince. He cannot be suspected of entering the decision-making circuits to advance or bypass them.
Allied relationship under surveillance
The United States and Israel maintain one of the most dense military relations in the world. Financial assistance, missile defence, intelligence sharing, technology programs, joint exercises and regional coordination structure this alliance. It has resisted political crises, electoral alternations and tactical disagreements for decades. That is precisely why the case is serious. The closer an alliance is, the more operational confidence becomes indispensable. If American officials wonder if their phones are being monitored by a partner, the relationship changes in nature.
History weighs heavy. The case of Jonathan Pollard, an American naval analyst convicted of spying for Israel in the 1980s, remains a deep wound in American security circles. Other episodes have fuelled suspicion over time, including the monitoring of nuclear negotiations with Iran under the Obama administration or intercepting equipment located near sensitive sites in Washington. Israel has always rejected the most recent accusations and recalls its commitment not to spy on its American ally. But institutional memories are slowly disappearing.
This memory explains the sensitivity of the « critical » level. This is not an ordinary media controversy. Such an assessment, if it has been broadcast in the Pentagon circuits, reflects the views of the counter-interference professionals. Their job is to consider threats regardless of diplomatic susceptibility. An Allied country can then be classified as a high risk if its capabilities, interest and behaviour warrant it. This bureaucratic logic may collide with political communication, which prefers to display unity.
Possible consequences for Pentagon
The first consequences could be practical. United States officials could travel with disposable phones, limit sensitive conversations in Israel, avoid certain hotels, refuse local communication channels and strengthen escorts by embassy security teams. Meetings with Israeli officials could be prepared with greater caution. Internal notes could circulate on smaller channels. Some exchanges could be compartmentalized to limit the risk of leakage or interception.
Another consequence could be information sharing. The officials cited by the press indicate that daily cooperation has not been interrupted. But moving to a critical alert level can encourage partitioning. The most sensitive issues, particularly those related to negotiations with Iran, could be less widely shared. Israeli officials could receive the information later or in less detail. Even if limited, such a development would have a strategic cost to Israel, which depends heavily on real-time knowledge of American decisions.
Politically, the case also offers weapons to Netanyahu’s opponents in Washington. Those who consider Israel too aggressive can denounce an unbalanced alliance. Those who defend a pro-Israeli line will respond that the accusations are based on anonymous leaks and that they may serve as internal struggles in the US administration. The narration battle has already begun. It’s not just about spying. It deals with the question of who decides the American strategy in the Middle East: Washington, or an ally who tries to anticipate and influence his choices.
A signal for other allies
The case will be followed beyond Israel and the United States. The European allies, the Gulf countries, Turkey and Iran will read in this crisis an indication of the real state of the American-Israeli relationship. If Washington appears unable to protect its own negotiators, its diplomatic credibility can be affected. If Israel appears ready to monitor its partners to maintain the strategic initiative, its relationship with other capitals can become more difficult. In both cases, the leakage of suspicion from intelligence circles weakens the discretion required for negotiations.
For Lebanon, the sequence is not peripheral. The tensions between Trump and Netanyahu also concern the Israeli strikes in Lebanon and the difficulty of preserving a credible ceasefire. If Israel seeks American arbitrations on war with Iran and on operations in Lebanon, it is that these arbitrations can limit or encourage its military action. The fate of Lebanese civilians, infrastructure and local truces, therefore, also depends on American discussions that Israel would seek, according to these reports, to break through.
The file remains open. The charges of espionage did not lead to full publication of internal documents. The Israeli and American denials remain firm. The Pentagon did not deliver its detailed version. But the alert reported at the critical level already indicates a breakdown of confidence. The coming weeks will show whether this assessment remains confined to security procedures or whether it leads to a broader review of the relationship with Israel, as Iran, Lebanon and regional negotiations put Washington under increasing pressure.
