Israel has a plan to insulate its security relationship from the United States as U.S. President Donald Trump, and the general public mood in the United States, turn against it. Israelis are acutely aware of their overwhelming dependence on Washington, their most important ally, which has stood by their side for decades, delivering state-of-the-art military equipment on the battlefield and diplomatic cover at the United Nations.

But that doesn’t mean they want to lose their strategic autonomy or refrain from punishing their prime minister for mishandling the key relationship.

As the U.S. president announced a deal with Iran, it was clear that Israel had been sidelined. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even admitted he doesn’t know all the details.

The U.S. president has said that Israel agreed to the terms of a deal with Iran, but not too long ago, he also told the Financial Times that the Israeli prime minister “won’t have any choice” in the matter. “I call the shots. I call all the shots,” Trump said.

Netanyahu has been forced into a tightrope walk: balancing between placating Trump while retaining independent decision-making, and projecting leadership in an election year. “We have a relationship of partners who know each other,” Netanyahu told reporters on Monday. “Many times, we agree; sometimes we don’t agree. That happens in the best families.”

While Netanyahu downplayed the tensions in ties, Israeli reporting suggested discontent with the deal especially over Iran’s demand that Israel must cease attacking Lebanon. Israelis see Lebanon as a separate track and want a free hand in disarming Hezbollah. Israel bombed Beirut on Sunday, hours before the United States and Iran declared that they had an agreement.

“We will have the ability to act independently to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons,” Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said. “Israel will not withdraw from the security zones in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza.”

Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defied the United States when he launched an attack on Iran despite a warning from Trump, who commanded Israel to hold fire.

Israeli strategists who spoke with Foreign Policy said the absence of an Israeli response to an Iranian strike following an Israeli attack on a Hezbollah stronghold in Beirut would have allowed Tehran to frame Israeli strikes on Lebanon as provocation to attack Israel and set a dangerous precedent. It would also portray Israeli policy as subordinate to future ties between Iran and the United States.

So far, Israel appears to have dodged Trump’s wrath. He dialed down tensions and told the BBC that Netanyahu didn’t defy him by firing at Iran because the missiles were “already on their way.” And yet, that’s insufficient assurance for a country that believes it is surrounded by hostile actors.

Israelis will try to avoid irriating any American president and yet they see a desperate need to Trump-proof procurement of U.S. military equipment. They are also adopting a new rulebook to protect the relationship from growing anti-Israel sentiment in the United States.

Israel depends on the United States for an array of weapons systems as well as diplomatic and economic support. Trump could, if he wanted, pull the rug from under Israel and leave it exposed in a hostile region if Netanyahu were seen as jeopardizing the U.S.-Iran agreement.

Israel’s combat air fleet is predominantly American-made, featuring stealth strike fighters such as F-35s, F-15s, and F-16s. “Let me put it this way: In the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, all the planes flown by the IDF [Israeli military] were American,” Yaakov Amidror, a former national security advisor to Netanyahu and now a Washington, D.C.-based fellow with Israeli think tank Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, told me over the phone.

Israel heavily banks on the United States for attack and transport helicopters such as the Apache, Black Hawk, and Sea Stallion, and ammunition including 155 mm artillery shells, 120 mm mortar rounds, tank rounds, and precision bombs.

Israel and the United States have also jointly developed advanced missile defense systems—including the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and the Arrow—that protect Israeli cities and its people from enemy fire and keep the casualty rate minimal. These systems expose Israel to relatively limited damage while allowing it to hit opponents with force.

Under a U.S. law, any weapons provided to Middle Eastern countries must not compromise Israel’s qualitative military edge—that is, military superiority—and Washington must offer the country first dibs on state-of-the-art military equipment. In addition, the United States shares intelligence, has frequently shielded Israel diplomatically from U.N. resolutions, guided the policy of European partners in Israel’s favor, and helped economically with hundreds of billions of dollars in aid.

Potentially, Trump could cut off arms supplies if he found Israel to be in opposition to the Iran deal or policy in Lebanon. Stopping arms sales—“that’s the nuclear option,” David Schenker, a former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs in the first Trump administration and now a senior fellow with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told NPR.

Trump, who has enjoyed being popular in Israel, is unlikely to take an extreme measure; conceivable options include delaying weapon supplies, reducing intelligence sharing, or threatening withdrawal of support at the United Nations.

Israel views a decline in overall support from the U.S. public as a greater danger to ties with the United States than Trump’s sporadic outbursts. As many as 60 percent of American adults hold an unfavorable view of Israel, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in March.

Israel’s diminishing appeal has been exacerbated by conservative commentators, such as Tucker Carlson, who are publicly questioning Israel’s actions in Gaza and the basis of U.S. military support for the country. In such an atmosphere, Israel finds itself losing support among Americans and fears serious disruption in military cooperation.

Israel has started preparing for a reduction in supplies and plans to develop and manufacture heavy bombs, scale up production of ammunition, and procure more armored vehicles.

“We want to be more independent in terms of producing our own ammunition, spare parts for weapons systems, gathering more intelligence capabilities, and so on,” Amidror said. However, he also acknowledged Israel’s limitations.

“We are not going to produce Apaches, F-35s, F-15s. We will continue to buy those main systems from the U.S. one way or another,” he said. If Trump or another U.S. leader made that impossible, he added, “we will go back to the free market, to whoever is ready to sell.”

Until the early 1960s, Amidror continued, “we didn’t have American weapons. I fought in the 1967 war with a Belgian rifle. The planes we flew were French. In our war of independence in ’48, we were banned from buying anything from the U.S., so we got weapons from Czechoslovakia.”

Israeli strategists believe that stopping the use of U.S. financial aid could save military cooperation.

The United States has agreed to provide Israel with $38 billion in military aid between 2018 and 2028. Lately, Netanyahu has said Israel will draw it down to zero to assuage concerns from those in the United States who see Israel as a mighty military power and a rich nation, and not in need of American aid.

“In the U.S., there are more voices against financing other countries’ defense. Our idea is that it will be wiser to substitute direct American support with joint ventures in which both countries give money for innovation and more sophisticated systems that are manufactured by both sides,” Amidror said.

Israel is trying to replace an aid-based defense arrangement with a joint manufacturing system under which the two countries will share knowledge and exchange technology at a much grander scale, firmly tying together their defense establishments. This way, it hopes to create greater vested interests and secure military cooperation, insulating it from the whims of U.S. politicians and potential shifts in public opinion among Americans.

“The future is not handouts. We are in a position to be serious partners; we don’t need scraps,” Eran Lerman, a retired intelligence colonel and a former Israeli deputy national security advisor who now serves as the vice president of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, told me over the phone.

“We are turning to the professionals—the permanent establishment—to turn our relationship with the U.S. into a true partnership,” Lerman said.