The bill says it is the policy of the United States to ensure Israel’s security, including by providing arms and developing a joint missile defense system, and to take other steps, such as fighting against anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations. It also calls on the United States to help produce an “Iron Dome” defense system that Israel could use to intercept short-range missiles.

The bill also calls for reports on how to speed the sale of F-35 fighter planes to Israel and the state of Israel’s military edge. And finally, it would extend a $9 billion loan guarantee program that can help Israel borrow more cheaply. The program was established in 2003, and $3.8 billion of the loan guarantee authority remains.

From the text of the bill:

SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States:

(1) To reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. As President Obama stated on December 16, 2011, ‘America’s commitment and my commitment to Israel and Israel’s security is unshakeable.’. And as President Bush stated before the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel on May 15, 2008, ‘The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty.’

(2) To provide Israel the military capabilities necessary to deter and defend itself by itself against any threats.(3) To veto any one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council.

(4) To support Israel’s inherent right to self-defense.

(5) To pursue avenues to expand cooperation with Israel in both defense and across the spectrum of civilian sectors, including high technology, agriculture, medicine, health, pharmaceuticals, and energy.

(6) To assist Israel with its on-going efforts to forge a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states living side by side in peace and security, and to encourage Israel’s neighbors to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

And here’s Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (the main pusher of an amendment to the now passed H.R. 1905 making it illegal for U.S. officials to even speak to Iranian officials unless a special waiver is issued 2 weeks in advance!) expressing her approval:

This bill expresses the sense of Congress that our country should support an increase to the totality of our bilateral security relations—from joint missile defense systems, intelligence cooperation, and military exercises between the United States and Israel, to increasing Air Force training, as well as providing increased excess defense articles and munitions to Israel.

This legislation also seeks to counter the Israel-bashing that has become common place in international forums such as the United Nations. The United States must not allow Israel to be isolated and demonized in international organizations, and must work together to withdraw U.S. participation in and funding from organizations that do so.

• The Hill: Rebecca Heinrichs, an adjunct fellow at the hawkish Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), blogs that the $60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia should not be allowed to “sail through without serious oversight from Congress.” Heinrichs argues that although arming Saudi Arabia is widely seen as part of a containment and deterrence strategy against Iran, “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is governed by a monarchy in accordance with Sharia Law…” and “…like the majority of Muslim countries, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not recognize the statehood of Israel.” She admits the United States does enjoy access to Saudi oil exports and that the country’s leaders oppose Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program but, “…but if a country’s mores are more like those of our enemies than our allies, we should be careful how we reciprocate those benefits.”

• The Atlantic: Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), blogs that Egypt, through Misr Iran Development Bank (MIDB), an Egyptian-Iranian financial institution, has become a vehicle for Iran to circumvent international sanctions. “It is a testament to how difficult it can be for the U.S. to enforce international sanctions, even among countries that appear to be natural allies in the effort to deter Iran,” writes Schanzer. He allows that, “Egypt, one of America’s closest allies in the Middle East and the recipient of more U.S. foreign aid than any country in the world save Israel, is certainly not planning on becoming a rogue state allied with Iran,” but “…Egypt is clearly hedging between Iran and the U.S.”

• Der Tagespiegel: The American Jewish Committee’s David Harris has an op-ed in the German daily (translated on AJC’s website) on the possibly forthcoming talks between the West and Iran. Harris cites experts who think Iran can be contained, then demurs: “[Iran] is driven by a theology which believes in hastening the coming of the so-called Hidden Imam. If unleashing war would help, it cannot be ruled out.” Even an Iran that doesn’t use weapons could make the world “a more dangerous place” by sparking an arms race that could lead to proliferation all the way in Greece. Harris then addresses potential dangers to Israel because of Iranian threats and client groups on Israel’s borders. Harris concludes by calling for explicit military threats against Iran: “The best way to avoid [the military option] is by making clear that it is on the table in all dealings with Iran. Only if Iran’s leaders grasp that the world is truly serious about preventing it from acquiring nuclear weapons can we hope for a diplomatic solution.”

• The National: Mohamad Bazzi, former Middle East bureau chief for Newsday and current adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes while the Obama administration has portrayed Hezbollah as having questionable loyalties to Lebanon, the Shi’a political party plays a valuable role for Shiite community in Lebanon. “There is a long tradition of the Lebanese state leaving Shiites to fend for themselves and waiting for religious or charitable groups to fill the vacuum. […]Hizbollah’s “state within a state” was possible because successive governments left a void in the Shiite-dominated areas of southern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley and the southern suburbs of Beirut.” He notes that while Hezbollah is reliant on Iran for financial, military and political support, it is mischaracterized as “purely an Iranian proxy” by western and Arab policy makers.

• The Hill’s Congress Blog: Mark D. Wallace, President of United Against Nuclear Iran, opines that new U.S. sanctions, which took effect on September 29, “closes a significant loophole found in previous U.S. sanction provisions by covering not only U.S. companies and financial institutions but foreign firms and subsidiaries as well.” Wallace, a former ambassador to the UN and the Bush-Cheney ’04 Deputy Campaign Manager, argues against the criticism that the new sanctions law  oversteps “extraterritoriality.”  He concludes, “Iran’s flagrant defiance of international norms should be reason enough for corporations to cease their business dealings in Iran. Now the U.S. government is presenting companies with a reasonable choice should they refuse to do so: do business with Uncle Sam or with the mullahs in Tehran.”

• The New York Times: Despite some distortions demonizing Iran, such as repeating the mistranslation Ahmadinejad’s statement that Israel should be “wiped off the map,” columnist Tom Friedman explicitly endorses linkage between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other problems that hamper the U.S. in the Middle East. “At a time when the president has made it one of his top priorities to build a global coalition to stop Iran from making a nuclear weapon, he took the very logical view that if he could advance the peace process in the Middle East it would give him much greater leverage to get the Europeans and U.N. behind tougher sanctions on Iran,” writes Friedman. In light of this, he declares Israel is behaving like a “spoiled child,” pointing to that nation’s intransigence in the peace process.

• The Hill: Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies writes on The Hill‘s Congress Blog that Iran owns 15 percent of a uranium mine in Namibia, the third largest uranium mine in the world. Iran has owned a stake since the early 1970s and, according to Schanzer, does so using a loophole that needs to be fixed. He warns that “as the Iranian nuclear endgame plays out, oversights like these could give Tehran a dangerous advantage.” The Iranian stake in the mine is owned by the Iran Foreign Investment Company (IFIC), which, according the U.S. Treasury restrictions, cant’ do business with U.S. companies. Schanzer says Congress should ban business with Rossing, which manages the mine, and the U.S. should confront the company as well as the Namibian government about Iran’s involvement.

• Reuters: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Lebanon brought harsh words from White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs. In response to a question about Ahmadinejad’s plan to travel to Lebanon’s border with Israel, Gibbs told reporters, “[Ahmadinejad] continues his provocative ways…even as he leaves his country further in economic distress and turmoil as a result of his actions that have led to international sanctions that are having great impact.” The visit to Lebanon is the first official state visit by an Iranian president. Gibbs said that the visit “suggests that Hezbollah values its allegiance to Iran over its allegiance to Lebanon.”

• Washington Times: Reza Kahlili, a former CIA spy in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who writes in hawkish publications under a pseudonym, takes to the Times opinion page to declare President Ahmadinejad’s visit to Lebanon a “victory over Israel and the West in gaining control” over the tiny Mediterranean country. He says that U.S. withdrawal from Lebanon in the 1980s was “the beginning of the Islamic [Republic] regime’s dominance in the Middle East.” Even after Iranian ascent, he writes, “the West continues to provide legitimacy to terrorism and the terrorists’ criminal activity by maintaining its policy of appeasement and negotiation.” In June, Kahlili made a thinly-veiled call for war to unseat the Islamic regime in Iran.