This paper explores the persistent tensions within U.S. security cooperation, where efforts to build partner capacity often collide with the realities of sovereignty, hierarchy, and risk. Although designed to enhance global stability, security cooperation initiatives frequently impose on partner autonomy, revealing the hierarchical nature of the international system beneath the rhetoric of equal partnership. Drawing from strategic theory and operational experience, the paper introduces the "security cooperation dilemma," highlighting the twin fears of entrapment for the dominant power and abandonment for the partner. It criticises existing Department of Defense (DOD) frameworks, especially the Significant Security Cooperation Initiative Construct (SSCIC), for inadequately addressing political willingness and absorptive capacity. The analysis argues that political commitment is a function of risk, particularly physical and political, and should be observed through tangible actions rather than verbal assurances. The study concludes by advocating for a recalibration of security cooperation practices, emphasising strategic patience, realistic timelines, and a rigorous focus on genuine political commitment and risk absorption as prerequisites for sustainable security cooperation success. »» TDHJ «« » patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedefencehorizon » donate: https://tdhj.org/about/#donation »» HOME «« » https://tdhj.org/ »» SOCIAL MEDIA «« » X (formerly Twitter): https://x.com/HorizonDefence » Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedefencehorizon.org » Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thedefencehorizonjournal/ » LinkedIn: The Defence Horizon Journal