Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s controversial visit to Israel comes at an inappropriate time when the region is in geopolitical turmoil, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu under tremendous domestic and global pressure. Media reports have suggested that Israel has agreed to share all its latest defence technologies with India, including joint development of anti-ballistic missile defence, laser weapons and long-range stand-off missiles and drones.Prime Minister Modi’s visit, as per these reports, will take forward the Memorandum of Understanding on expanded defence cooperation signed in November last year by defence secretary Rajesh Kumar Singh during his visit to Israel. This has also been amplified on social media.But how likely is that Israel will transfer all its latest defence technologies to India, including the Iron Dome and the Iron Beam, without the explicit approval of the United States? What is the normative and legal position on transfer of such technologies to a third country?What is the Iron Beam?Iron Beam is a 100kW high-energy laser (HEL) system designed to intercept rockets, mortars and drones at a cost of approximately $2 per shot, as per Israel’s claim. While the core technology was developed indigenously by Rafael and the Israeli Ministry of Defense (IMOD) over 30 years, the US became a major partner in its industrialisation. In 2024 and 2025, the US Congress provided over $1.2 billion specifically for the procurement, integration and continued development of the system.A 2022 agreement between Rafael and Lockheed Martin established a framework for developing a US-specific variant. By early 2026, the technology is being shared with the US Army’s directed energy programmes, while the IDF officially received its first operational batteries in December 2025. It is noteworthy that the first operational system has only just been delivered to the IDF.What makes the Iron Beam so attractive?The Iron Beam is extremely attractive for air defence because it supposedly solves the cost-exchange ratio problem. In today’s attrition warfare, an adversary can bankrupt a defender by launching $500 drones that require a $50,000 interceptor missile to shoot them down. At roughly $2 per shot, the Iron Beam makes these drone swarms a financial liability for the attacker rather than the defender. Even though the $2 figure has become the standard, the Directorate of Defence Research & Development (DDR&D) within the IMOD has used “negligible cost” or “a few dollars” in its formal press releases, most notably in the September 2025 announcement of the system’s final testing phase.How does the US come into all this?The collaboration between the US and Israel on missile defence is one of the most complex defence partnerships in the world. For example, the Iron Dome was heavily co-funded by the US, and roughly 50% of the Tamir interceptors are manufactured in the US by Raytheon.Iron Beam, by contrast, was initially funded and developed domestically but it is not a pure national programme anymore; it now sits inside a US–Israel co‑development ecosystem. That does not mean Washington automatically controls every aspect of Israeli Iron Beam exports, but it does mean that any configuration containing US‑funded or US‑origin sub‑systems, components, or technical data would normally trigger US export‑control review if exported.So Israel can’t transfer this technology to India without US approval?The question of whether Israel can transfer this technology to India is governed by a strict hierarchy of US Federal Law, even if the product is made in Israel. Transferring Iron Beam technology is thus not just a commercial transaction; it is a legal navigation of the US laws. If Israel offers full transfer to India, it can only legally proceed if the US State Department grants a waiver or if the specific units sold are certified as ‘Sovereign/ITAR-free,’ a difficult and rare distinction for high-end laser tech.Why? What is the normative and legal position on such transfers?The normative position is that any technology developed with US funding or containing US-origin components is subject to US Law. These laws specifically include:Arms Export Control Act (AECA): It is the primary US law governing defence exports. It mandates that any technology developed with US financial assistance or containing US-origin components cannot be transferred to a third party without explicit written consent from the US State Department. Because the US provided over $1 billion for Iron Beam, Washington effectively holds a legal veto over its export. Even if the ‘brain’ of the laser is Israeli, the ‘body’ (production and funding) is inextricably linked to the US.ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations): If a system contains even a single US-origin component or utilised US technical data during development, it falls under ITAR. In the case of Iron Beam, US-origin components such as specific cooling systems or sensors developed via the Lockheed Martin partnership, means that it falls under ITAR.Under bilateral agreements, Israel is legally prohibited from transferring jointly developed or US-funded technology to a third country such as India, without written consent from the US State Department. This means Israel must submit a formal Third Party Transfer request to the US for any deal with India. Along with it comes End User Monitoring. The US reserves the right to inspect how the technology is being used in India to ensure it doesn’t leak to adversaries, say China or Russia.Congressional Funding: Successive US appropriations and NDAA provisions that fund Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow, and Iron Beam typically include requirements for US–Israel cooperation and, implicitly or explicitly, US export-control oversight.Does Israel not have its sovereign version of technology that it can give to India?Yes, Israel frequently attempts to develop sovereign versions of its technology. These are variants built without US components or funding specifically to bypass AECA/ ITAR restrictions. However, the US discourages sovereign versions of jointly funded projects, as it views the technology as a shared strategic asset.What about Iron Dome technology?It is even more difficult than the Iron Beam. Iron Dome is heavily tied into US funding, co‑production, and therefore US export‑control equities. The US has provided over $1.3 billion since 2011 specifically for Iron Dome production and interceptor replenishment. The US Missile Defense Agency obtained full access to Iron Dome’s proprietary technology as part of these arrangements. A 2014 US–Israel co‑production agreement shifted significant Tamir interceptor manufacturing to the US; Raytheon (now part of RTX) is Rafael’s US partner producing Tamir components, which are then assembled in Israel.But Israel has exported Iron Dome to other countries?Israel has exported or offered Iron Dome‑related capabilities to few countries including the US and Azerbaijan, but almost always as a finished system or co‑production, not as unconstrained full design disclosure. The US Army bought two batteries as an interim capability; the programme was curtailed partly because Israel declined to provide full source code for deeper integration with US command systems, which shows how protective Israel is of core software even with the US There is no known case where Israel has handed another country the complete Iron Dome source code, full interceptor design data and sovereign production rights devoid of export‑control strings.So the US essentially exercises a veto over such transfers?If Israel offered India a fully indigenous architecture (no US‑origin hardware/ software/ technical data), it could, in principle, do so without US approval. But current Iron Dome exports and any practical Iron Beam configuration are deeply interwoven with US‑funded and US‑origin components and IP, so in practice there are US veto points. This is why the US congressional reports treat these systems as joint programmes.How do these restrictions not apply to transfer of Israeli missiles to India?The missile package that India has been interested in, including SPICE‑1000, Rampage, Air LORA and Ice Breaker, appears to be primarily Israeli IP and manufacturing. Many of them are already in service in India. The US veto power there, if it were to be exercised, will have to be indirect political pressure on Israel rather than rooted in formal US export‑control ownership of the designs.Finally, what should we conclude?The suggestion that Israel can simply hand the entire Iron Dome and Iron Beam complex knowhow to India glosses over the depth of US financial, industrial and legal entanglement in these systems. The ‘no‑strings full tech transfer’ narrative in many Indian media reports is not presently supported by the available facts.