SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
center for international policy
Trump's Iran Disaster an Even Bigger US Strategic Defeat Than Vietnam: Expert
"The United States is inarguably in a weaker position than when it began this war of choice, with core US strategic objectives harmed."
Jun 17, 2026
President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice with Iran has dealt the United States an even bigger strategic defeat than the one it suffered in the Vietnam War, according to one expert.
In an essay published on Tuesday by Foreign Policy, Paul Musgrave, associate professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, made the case that the damage done to the United States' reputation and credibility in the wake of the Iran war are significantly more severe than anything the country suffered in the wake of Vietnam.
Even though the Vietnam War went on for far longer and resulted in far more deaths than Trump's Iran war, Musgrave argued, the US nonetheless exited it with little long-term damage to its global power.
"Compare that situation with the aftermath of Trump’s war," Musgrave continued. "The United States is inarguably in a weaker position than when it began this war of choice, with core US strategic objectives harmed."
Musgrave noted that while the US and Israel had initial success in decapitating Iran's leadership at the beginning of the conflict, this only left the hardliners in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to run the country.
By failing to achieve the stated aim of regime change and by empowering even more radical elements within Iran, Musgrave added, Trump has severely damaged other nations' willingness to trust the US for national security protection.
"Regional allies, many of whom reportedly argued against the venture, bore the brunt of the costs of the fighting," the scholar wrote. "Most tellingly, Iran learned that its capacity to throttle the Strait of Hormuz could deliver economic leverage on a worldwide scale."
Writing in The New York Times on Wednesday, national security journalist WJ Hennigan argued that the United States' strategic defeat has laid bare the limits of US military power to bend weaker nations to its will.
In particular, he pointed out that the US, which spent $1 trillion on its military last year, could not take out even a majority of Iran's missile stockpiles.
"Yes, the wonder weapons that American industry cranks out, like cruise missiles and air-defense interceptors, have proven impressive on the battlefield," Hennigan wrote. "But the war has exposed the underlying weaknesses of depending on weaponry that’s extremely expensive and time-consuming to deliver. During an April 30 congressional hearing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth estimated it could take 'months and years' to replenish the stocks that had been used in the war."
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy, similarly said that Trump's Iran war had resulted in a strategic defeat for the US. However, he also expressed hope that this defeat could mark a turning point in US foreign policy circles regarding the applications of American power throughout the world.
"There’s a longstanding US bipartisan consensus around wildly inflating the Iranian threat," Duss wrote in a social media post. "Trump’s war, a strategic defeat, was an expression of that consensus. If... ending the war puts the US and Iran on path to a more normal relationship, that will be a positive thing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Complete Bullshit’: Expert Torches Hegseth Claim That War Was Necessary to Prevent Iranian Nuke
“It feels insane to have to keep repeating this," said Matt Duss, pointing to US intelligence assessing that "Iran ended nuclear weapons-related work in 2003."
May 01, 2026
President Donald Trump and his administration have continued to claim that their historically unpopular war with Iran was necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon despite ample evidence to the contrary.
During testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, Hegseth insisted that the US military had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear capabilities with strikes carried out in 2025, while maintaining that a full-scale war was necessary because the country hadn't given up its "nuclear ambitions."
HEGSETH: Their nuclear facilities have been obliterated
SMITH: Whoa whoa whoa whoa. We had to start this war, you just said, because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat. Now you're saying it was completely obliterated?
HEGSETH: They had not given up their *ambitions*… pic.twitter.com/T8c1vTfC0T
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 29, 2026
Merely having the "ambition" to create a nuclear weapon would not make Iran an imminent threat, and US intelligence found no evidence that Iran was anywhere close to developing such a weapon.
US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified under oath before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee last month that Iran’s nuclear weapons program had been “obliterated” by US-led airstrikes that were launched last year, and that there “has been no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability."
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy, pointed out in a social media post that US intelligence showing that Iran lacks the capacity to build nuclear weapons goes back decades.
"It feels insane to have to keep repeating this: The 2007 [National Intelligence Estimate] assessed that Iran ended nuclear weapons-related work in 2003," Duss explained. "That assessment has not changed. The claim that this war was necessary to prevent an Iranian nuke is just complete bullshit."
Despite multiple US intelligence reports indicating that Iran is not an imminent threat to the US, Trump has continued to hype its supposed nuclear ambitions to justify his war, which he launched illegally without any congressional authorization in late February.
In a Thursday interview with Newsmax, Trump baselessly claimed that Iran would immediately launch a nuclear weapon after acquiring one, even though doing so would risk massive retaliation by the US, which has more than 5,000 nuclear warheads at its disposal.
"I will tell you that Iran would use the nuclear weapon if they had it," Trump said. "I deal with these people. I know people. They will use their nuclear weapons, and we're not going to give them a chance to do it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Vile and Un-American': Tuberville Blasted for Demanding Mass Expulsion of Muslims
Republican Senator from Alabama, said one critic, is "unfit for public office and should face censure and removal."
Dec 15, 2025
A Republican senator is getting blasted for a bigoted social media rant in which he declared that Islam is "not a religion" while advocating the mass expulsion of Muslims from the US.
In the wake of Sunday's horrific mass shooting at a Hanukkah celebration in Australia, which left 16 people dead and was carried out by two men with suspected ties to the terrorist organization ISIS, Tuberville lashed out at Muslims and promoted their mass deportation.
"Islam is not a religion," Tuberville, currently a Republican candidate for Alabama governor, wrote on X. "It's a cult. Islamists aren't here to assimilate. They're here to conquer. Stop worrying about offending the pearl clutchers. We've got to SEND THEM HOME NOW or we'll become the United Caliphate of America."
Tuberville neglected to note that a Muslim man named Ahmed al Ahmed, a Syrian refugee who gained his Australian citizenship in 2022, tackled and disarmed one of the alleged shooters before they could fire more shots at the Jewish people who had gathered on Bondi Beach to celebrate Hanukkah.
Corey Saylor, research and advocacy director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said that Tuberville's comments on Muslims were akin to those made by former Alabama Gov. George Wallace, an infamous segregationist who fought the US federal government's efforts to racially integrate state schools.
"Senator Tuberville appears to have looked at footage of George Wallace standing in a schoolhouse door to keep Black students out and decided that was a model worth reviving—this time against Muslims,” Saylor said. “His rhetoric belongs to the same shameful chapter of American history, and it will be taught that way.”
Tuberville was also condemned by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who hammered the Republican senator for using an attack on Jews in Australia to justify prejudice against Muslims in the US.
"An outrageous, disgusting display of islamophobia from Sen. Tuberville," wrote Schumer. "The answer to despicable antisemitism is not despicable islamophobia. This type of rhetoric is beneath a United States senator—or any good citizen for that matter."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), meanwhile, described Tuberville's rant as "vile and un-American," and said that his "bigoted zealotry" against Muslims would have made America's founders "cringe."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said Tuberville's rhetoric was completely at odds with the US Constitution.
"This is a senator calling for religious purges in the United States," he wrote. "A country whose earliest colonists came fleeing religious persecution and whose Founders thought that protecting against state interference with religion was so important it was put into the First Amendment."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, noted that Tuberville was far from alone in expressing open bigotry toward Muslims, as US Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) and New York City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino had also made vicious anti-Muslim statements in recent days.
"A congressman says mainstream Muslims should be 'destroyed,'" he wrote. "A senator says Islam is not a religion and Muslims should be sent 'home.' A NYC councilwoman calls for the 'expulsion' and 'denaturalization' of Muslims. Fascist anti-Muslim bigotry is now explicit Republican policy."
Williams also said Tuberville was "unfit for public office and should face censure and removal."
Fred Wellman, a Democratic candidate for US congress in Missouri, countered Tuberville with just two sentences: "Islam is a religion. Tommy Tuberville is an unrepentant racist."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Wow': Observers Surprised After Dem Moderate Rejects AIPAC Cash
"AIPAC's brand is increasingly, perhaps irredeemably toxic," wrote one observer.
Oct 16, 2025
A centrist Democratic lawmaker on Thursday surprised many political observers when he announced he would be returning donations he'd received from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), who is running a primary challenge against Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), said that he was rejecting donations from AIPAC because it had aligned itself too closely with the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who last year was accused of committing crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court.
"I'm a friend of Israel, but not of its current government, and AIPAC's mission is to back that government," Moulton said in a social media post. "I don't support that direction."
As flagged by New York Times reporter Annie Karni, Moulton is now the fourth Democratic lawmaker who once received heavy support from AIPAC to reject their donations, following Reps. Morgan McGarvey (D-Ky.), Deborah Ross (D-NC), and Valerie Foushee (D-NC).
Hamid Bendaas, communications director for the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project, observed in a post on X that Moulton appeared to be ignoring advice given by a prominent Democratic consultant over the summer to not focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict because polls showed it wasn't important to voters.
Dylan Williams, the vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, argued that Moulton's rejection of AIPAC cash showed how far the organization's reputation with the electorate has fallen over the past several years.
"AIPAC is now so toxic to Democratic voters that support from it is widely seen as a political liability," he wrote. "The NRA-ization of AIPAC is nearly complete."
Ishaan Tharoor, a Washington Post global affairs columnist, also reflected on how much AIPAC's brand has been damaged over the last two years of war in Gaza, which has resulted in the deaths of at least 68,000 Palestinians.
"There was a time when people would refer to AIPAC as the gold standard in lobbying," he wrote. "So many in India and the Indian diaspora have talked about a future 'Indian AIPAC' one day influencing US politics in similar fashion. But AIPAC's brand is increasingly, perhaps irredeemably toxic."
Journalist Ryan Grim had a one-word reaction to Moulton's rejection of AIPAC cash: "Wow."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Netanyahu Joint Remarks Ripped as 'Litany of Lies... Not a Promising Foundation for Peace'
One critic noted Trump's plan for Gaza "contains numerous opportunities for Netanyahu to renege on his commitments, as he has repeatedly done in the past."
Sep 29, 2025
US President Donald Trump announced on Monday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had agreed to a peace plan to end the war in Gaza—but many critics were skeptical that anything good would come from it.
The plan, which the White House released on Monday, requires Hamas to return all remaining Israeli hostages it took in the October 7, 2023 attacks in exchange for the release of nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners currently held in Israeli custody.
The plan also mandates that Hamas have no role in governing Gaza after the war, as responsibility for running the exclave would be handed over on a temporary basis to "a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for the people in Gaza."
Notably, the Trump proposal dropped previous demands he'd made about expelling Palestinians from their land, and it stated that "no one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return." The plan also says that "Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza," even though Netanyahu and his government for months have said they intend to take full control of Gaza.
The plan drew some immediate criticism from skeptics, however.
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), attacked the Trump plan for not being a serious proposal to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
"Trump and Netanyahu’s remarks today were a litany of lies about the last 30 years, not a promising foundation for peace," Duss said. "Despite his claim of being close to a deal, Trump's statement that Israel will have 'full US backing' to 'finish the job' in Gaza if his plan is not agreed to stood out most clearly. This would be more of what we have seen not only the last nine months, but the last two years, as the United States has unconditionally armed and subsidized a genocide in Gaza."
Duss welcomed Trump seemingly taking the forced expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza off the table as part of his plan, but added that it also "contains numerous opportunities for Netanyahu to renege on his commitments, as he has repeatedly done in the past."
Drop Site News' Ryan Grim appeared equally skeptical that the Trump plan would hold up, and he wrote in a post on X he's waiting to see "what Netanyahu does to scuttle the deal once he leaves the White House."
Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, observed in a social media post that Trump had successfully pressured Netanyahu to apologize to the government of Qatar for launching an attack against Hamas leaders on its soil earlier this month.
"That Netanyahu was forced to apologize to the emir of Qatar by phone from the White House with Trump in the room shows the leverage that the US has over Israel when it chooses to," he wrote. "Too often it chooses otherwise. It could've chosen not to support the genocide in the first place."
Drop Site News reported shortly after the deal was announced that the governments of Qatar and Egypt have given it to Hamas, which said it would study the proposal.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Decry Rubio's 'Deeply Unserious' State Department Overhaul Plan
One observer called the proposal "nothing less than an assault on American diplomacy."
Apr 23, 2025
Secretary of State Marco Rubio's plan to streamline what he called the "bloated" State Department by slashing staff and closing or consolidating bureaus was widely criticized Tuesday as a dangerous retreat from diplomacy and soft power that would weaken U.S. standing abroad and boost adversaries.
"In its current form, the department is bloated, bureaucratic, and unable to perform its essential diplomatic mission in this new era of great power competition," Rubio said in a statement. "Over the past 15 years, the department's footprint has had unprecedented growth and costs have soared."
"But far from seeing a return on investment, taxpayers have seen less effective and efficient diplomacy," he added. "The sprawling bureaucracy created a system more beholden to radical political ideology than advancing America's core national interests. That is why today I am announcing a comprehensive reorganization plan that will bring the department into the 21st century."
Marco Rubio says the State Department has been “beholden to radical political ideology.” Also known as democracy.
[image or embed]
— Mark Jacob ( @markjacob.bsky.social) April 22, 2025 at 9:45 AM
Rubio's proposal includes a 15% department-wide staff reduction, the elimination of 132 of the agency's 734 bureaus and offices, and the consolidation of many others, according to reports. Bureaus and programs expected to be eliminated or merged include the Office of Global Women's Issues; the war crimes and civilian protection divisions; and the agency's diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, which have been banned throughout the executive branch. The position of special climate envoy will also be eliminated.
The Office of Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights is slated to be replaced by a new division for the coordination for foreign assistance and humanitarian affairs that will assume responsibilities once shouldered by the embattled U.S. Agency for International Development. Already under siege by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, USAID is reeling from Rubio's announcement last month that the vast majority of its programs would be canceled.
Christopher Le Mon, a former senior department official during the Biden administration, told The New York Times Tuesday that the plan's human rights scaleback "sends a clear signal that the Trump administration cares less about fundamental freedoms than it does about cutting deals with autocrats and tyrants."
In a Substack post published Tuesday, Rubio accused the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor of becoming "a platform for left-wing activists to wage vendettas against 'anti-woke' leaders" and the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of funneling "millions of taxpayer dollars to international organizations and NGOs that facilitated mass migration around the world, including the invasion on our southern border."
Responding to this, Brandon Wu, director of policy and campaigns at ActionAid USA, said that "Secretary Rubio's rant against the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor as the carrier of a leftist agenda lays the administration's intentions bare: Their decimation of the State Department is part of an unhinged crusade against perceived 'woke' policies and practices, not a coherent plan for reform."
"The idea that any part of the State Department was supporting an 'invasion' of the U.S. southern border is similarly ludicrous," Wu added. "The proposed staff reductions at the State Department, when taken in conjunction with the dismantling of USAID, will hamper the diplomatic engagement with the rest of the world. This is a deeply unserious proposal that will not make the U.S. safer or stronger."
"Trump has said he wants to be a president who ends wars, but moves like this will make that much more difficult."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, called Rubio's plan "nothing less than an assault on American diplomacy" that will "further decimate U.S. influence and standing in the world, undermining our fundamental security and other critical interests."
"Coupled with the administration's intention to dramatically increase military spending, this decimation of the State Department also serves as a clear indication that it is prioritizing militarism over diplomacy," Williams said. "Donald Trump has said he wants to be a president who ends wars, but moves like this will make that much more difficult."
Democratic lawmakers also condemned Rubio's proposal, with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asserting that "any changes to the State Department and USAID must be carefully weighed with the real costs to American security and leadership."
"As I and many of my Democratic colleagues have made clear, we welcome reforms where needed—but they must be done with care," she continued. "Elon Musk and his team have engaged in a slash-and-burn campaign targeting federal employees, terminating critical programs at State and USAID, undermining our allies, and diminishing American leadership in the world."
"A strong and mission-ready State Department advances American national security interests, opens up new markets for American workers and companies, and promotes global peace and stability," Shaheen added. "It remains to be seen how the administration's latest proposals will achieve that goal."
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, warned that Rubio's proposed reorganization "would leave the State Department ill-equipped to advance U.S. national security interests."
"The vital work left on Secretary Rubio's cutting-room floor represents significant pillars of our foreign policy long supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, including former Sen. Rubio—not 'radical ideologies' as he now claims," Meeks added. "Retreating from this work will further erode our national security and undermine our influence on the world stage."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israel Agrees to Cease-Fire With Lebanon's Hezbollah—But What About Gaza?
"It has long been clear that a cease-fire in Gaza is crucial to sustain any lasting cessation of hostilities across the region," said one group.
Nov 26, 2024
Peace advocates on Tuesday cautiously celebrated Israel agreeing to a cease-fire with the Lebanese political and paramilitary group Hezbollah while also stressing the need for an immediate end to the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip.
Despite concerns about whether the truce will actually happen, the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), a U.S.-based Quaker group, welcomed the plans for it and called on "all parties to ensure this agreement is swiftly enacted."
"The time for peace is now—not just in Lebanon, but in Gaza and across the region," FCNL declared on social media. "We urge U.S. officials to ensure this agreement brings an immediate end to the Israeli government's devastating and indiscriminate bombing and attacks against Lebanese civilians, which have been fueled by U.S. weapons."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office announced that the National Security Cabinet approved the cease-fire in Lebanon with a 10-1 vote—only far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir voted no. The office added that "Israel appreciates the U.S. contribution to the process, and reserves the right to act against any threat to its security."
Netanyahu said in a speech to Israelis that "the length of the cease-fire depends on what happens in Lebanon. With the United States' full understanding, we maintain full freedom of military action. If Hezbollah violates the agreement and tries to arm itself, we will attack. If it tries to rebuild terrorist infrastructure near the border, we will attack. If it launches a rocket, if it digs a tunnel, if it brings in a truck carrying rockets, we will attack."
Speaking from the White House Rose Garden, outgoing U.S. President Joe Bidensaid that he worked with French President Emmanuel Macron to negotiate the cease-fire, which is set to begin at 4:00 am local time on Wednesday. The United States has spent at least tens of billions on Israeli military operations and related U.S. operations in the region since the Gaza-based Palestinian group Hamas led the October 7, 2023 attack on southern Israel.
"As Biden spoke tonight, Israel was raining U.S. bombs down on Lebanon and Gaza," noted Drop Site journalist Jeremy Scahill.
Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati on Tuesday thanked France and the United States for negotiating the truce, which he said is "a fundamental step towards establishing calm and stability in Lebanon" and "helps to establish regional stability." He also reiterated his government's intention to "strengthen the army's presence in the south."
Cross-border battles between Israeli forces and Hezbollah over the past nearly 14 months have displaced tens of thousands of people in Israel and over 1 million in Lebanon. The Lebanese Ministry of Public Health said Tuesday that Israel's assault—which has intensified since September—has killed at least 3,823 people and injured another 15,859.
In Gaza, the death toll is at least 44,249, with 104,746 wounded, according to local officials. Israeli forces have also decimated civilian infrastructure and displaced most of the enclave's 2.3 million residents, who are struggling to access necessities, due to limits on aid. Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court last week issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, former Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and a Hamas leader.
"It has long been clear that a cease-fire in Gaza is crucial to sustain any lasting cessation of hostilities across the region," said FCNL. "More violence and suffering in Gaza will not make Israel, the U.S., or anyone safer or more secure. It must end now. We reiterate our calls for our government to use all U.S. leverage to bring about a full regional cease-fire to end the horrific suffering of Palestinians, protect all civilians, return all hostages home, de-escalate regional tensions, and begin the long road toward healing."
"That must include prohibiting more offensive weapons shipments and U.S. military involvement, which would send a message of impunity to the Israeli [government] in the face of repeated and grave violations of U.S. and international law in Gaza, Lebanon, the West Bank, and beyond," the group added—just days after a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senaterejected a trio of resolutions from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that would have halted some arms sales to Israel.
Nancy Okail, president and CEO of the U.S.-based Center for International Policy, responded similarly to the Tuesday development, saying in a statement that "we welcome news of a cease-fire agreement in Lebanon and hope that it can be implemented and sustained to prevent further harm to civilians who have been under threat of attack or suffered other great loss during the fighting."
"This agreement nonetheless comes too late. While Israel has the right to legitimate self-defense against Hezbollah, the Netanyahu government's deliberate escalation of the conflict in September resulted in disproportionate harm to civilians, hundreds of whom have been wounded or killed, with hundreds of thousands more displaced," Okail said. "Mixed messages and prevaricating by the Biden administration on its position on Israel's escalation and the need for a cease-fire [have] further prolonged the fighting and exacerbated the death and destruction it has brought."
"The U.S. and its partners must ensure that the terms of this agreement are fully honored so that civilians on both sides of the border can safely return to and rebuild their communities," she added. "What remains of the utmost urgency, however, is also ending the war in Gaza, where the U.S. arming of the Netanyahu government's campaign of displacement, starvation, slaughter and—per the repeated vows of senior Israeli officials—settlement continues in violation of American and international law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Rejects Sanders' Bid to Halt Arms to Israel Over Gaza Atrocities
"Our taxpayer dollars should be used to fund education, housing, and healthcare for Americans, not to support the destruction of innocent lives abroad," said one advocacy leader "deeply saddened" by the votes.
Nov 20, 2024
The U.S. Senate on Wednesday refused to pass joint resolutions of disapproval proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders that would prevent the sale of certain offensive American weaponry to Israel, which has killed nearly 44,000 Palestinians in Gaza since last fall.
S.J. Res. 111, S.J. Res. 113, and S.J. Res. 115 would have respectively blocked the sale of 120mm tank rounds, 120mm high-explosive mortar rounds, and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), the guidance kits attached to "dumb bombs."
The first vote was
18-79, with Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) voting present and Sens. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) and JD Vance (R-Ohio)—the vice-president-elect—not voting. In addition to Sanders (I-Vt.), those in favor were: Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).
The second vote was 19-78—Sen. George Helmy (D-N.J.) joined those voting for the resolution. The third vote was 17-80.
"What this extremist government has done in Gaza is unspeakable, but what makes it even more painful is that much of this has been done with U.S. weapons and American taxpayer dollars."
Ahead of the votes, Sanders took to the Senate floor to highlight that his resolutions were backed by over 100 groups, including pro-Israel J Street; leading labor organizations such as the Service Employees International Union, United Auto Workers, and United Electrical Workers; humanitarian groups like Amnesty International; and various faith organizations.
"I would also point out that poll after poll shows that a strong majority of the American people oppose sending more weapons and military aid to fund Netanyahu's war machine," the senator said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "According to a poll commissioned by J Street... 62% of Jewish Americans support withholding weapons shipments to Israel until Netanyahu agrees to an immediate cease-fire."
In addition to stressing that his proposals would not affect any of the systems Israel uses to defend itself from incoming attacks, Sanders argued that "from a legal perspective, these resolutions are simple, straightforward, and not complicated. Bottom line: The United States government must obey the law—not a very radical idea. But unfortunately, that is not the case now."
"The Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act are very clear: The United States cannot provide weapons to countries that violate internationally recognized human rights or block U.S. humanitarian aid," he continued. "According to the United Nations, according to much of the international community, according to virtually every humanitarian organization on the ground in Gaza, Israel is clearly in violation of these laws."
To illustrate the devastating impact of Israel's assault on Gaza—which has led to a genocide case at the International Court of Justice—Sanders quoted from an October New York Times opinion essay authored by American doctors who volunteered in Gaza. For example, Dr. Ndal Farah from Ohio said: "Malnutrition was widespread. It was common to see patients reminiscent of Nazi concentration camps with skeletal features."
Sanders said that "what this extremist government has done in Gaza is unspeakable, but what makes it even more painful is that much of this has been done with U.S. weapons and American taxpayer dollars. In the last year alone, the U.S. has provided $18 billion in military aid to Israel... and by the way, a few blocks from here, people are sleeping out on the street."
"We have also delivered more than 50,000 tons of military equipment to Israel," he added. "In other words... the United States of America is complicit in all of these atrocities. We are funding these atrocities. That complicity must end, and that is what these resolutions are about."
Merkley, Van Hollen, and Welch joined Sanders in speaking in favor of the resolutions on Wednesday. Members of both parties also spoke out against them: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sens. Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John Kennedy (R-La.), James Risch (R-Idaho), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.).
Cardin quoted talking points from the White House that were reported on earlier Wednesday by HuffPost. The outlet detailed how officials in outgoing President Joe Biden's administration suggested that "lawmakers who vote against the arms are empowering American and Israeli foes from Iran to the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, which the U.S. treats as terror organizations."
Just hours before the Senate debate, the Biden administrationvetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza—the fourth time it has blocked such a measure at the world body since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.
After the Senate votes, groups that supported Sanders' resolutions expressed disappointment.
Wa'el Alzayat, CEO of the Muslim advocacy group Emgage Action, said in a statement that "we have a moral obligation to stand up for the people of Gaza and demand an end to the constant bombardment they face. I'm deeply saddened that our U.S. senators shot down the joint resolutions calling for a halt in weapons to Israel. Our taxpayer dollars should be used to fund education, housing, and healthcare for Americans, not to support the destruction of innocent lives abroad."
"Continuing to provide Israel with unrestricted military aid to attack innocent civilians in Gaza and Lebanon is a moral failure—one the American government will look back on in horror as the situation gets unimaginably worse," Alzayat added. "While the resolution did not pass this time, we will continue working with lawmakers and allies to advocate for legislation that promotes justice and adherence to international law."
While these resolutions did not advance to the House of Representatives, Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian noted that "never before have so many senators voted to restrict arms transfers to Israel, and we are extremely grateful to those who did. This historic vote represents a sea change in how elected Democrats feel about the Israeli military's campaign of death and destruction in Gaza."
"We have all seen with our own eyes the thousands of innocent civilians who have been killed, displaced, and starved by weapons paid for with U.S. tax dollars," Kharrazian said. "Now, almost half of the Senate Democratic caucus is backing up our collective outrage with their votes. Supporters of this destructive war will try to claim victory but even they know that today's vote proves that the movement to end the war is growing, across America and in Congress, and we won't stop."
Center for International Policy executive vice president Matt Duss, who formerly served as Sanders' foreign policy adviser, similarly welcomed the progress, commending those who voted in favor of the resolutions for having "the courage to stand up for U.S. law, the rights of civilians in conflict, and basic decency."
"As civilian deaths, displacement, and disease among Palestinians in Gaza mount alongside open calls for ethnic cleansing by Israeli officials, the Biden administration is not merely failing to act—it is actively enabling the Netanyahu government's war crimes," he continued. "Rather than taking steps to bolster democracy, rights, and rule of law at home and abroad in advance of [President-elect] Donald Trump's second term, President Biden and his top officials are spending their precious last days in office lobbying against measures to protect U.S. interests and vetoing otherwise unanimously supported resolutions in the United Nations Security Council that reflect its own stated policies."
"The lawmakers who stood on the right side of history today will be remembered for their leadership and humanity," he added. "The same cannot be said about President Biden and those who help him abet starvation and slaughter in Gaza."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Calls for De-Escalation Mount as Israel Plans to 'Exact a Price From Iran'
"Now is the time for restraint and diplomacy, not more unconditional support for military escalation," said one advocate.
Apr 14, 2024
Since Iran on Saturday sent hundreds of drones and missiles—which were mostly shot down—toward Israel to retaliate for an Israeli bombing of the Iranian consulate in Syria, anti-war voices around the world have called for de-escalation efforts.
"We are deeply concerned that Iranian retaliatory strikes following Israel's April 1 attack on its diplomatic compound in Damascus will move the region even further from the path to peace and security," said Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council. "The launch of a significant attack on Israeli territory from Iran is without recent precedent and, unless there is a serious effort towards deconfliction, may confirm that Iran, Israel, and the United States are in the midst of the regional war that so many have feared."
"We call on the Biden administration to exercise the United States' considerable diplomatic leverage to restrain Israel and Iran to ensure this conflict does not spiral further out of control," he continued. "Far too many innocents have already suffered in the war that began October 7, and the cycle of violence and inhumanity must be broken."
"What's at stake is nothing less than stopping a regionwide war in the Middle East, which the United States would surely be drawn into."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the Hamas-led October 7 attack on Israel with an assault of the Gaza Strip called plausibly genocidal by the International Court of Justice. Israeli forces have killed at least 33,729 people, wounded 76,371 more, and obliterated civilian infrastructure, displacing most of the 2.3 million Palestinians who live in the besieged enclave.
Blasting Iran's Saturday attack on Israel as "another unacceptable turn in a dangerous escalation spiral," Win Without War executive director Sara Haghdoosti said that and U.S. President Joe Biden and senior administration officials "must use all their diplomatic heft and leverage to prevent further violence."
"What's at stake is nothing less than stopping a regionwide war in the Middle East, which the United States would surely be drawn into. There are no military solutions to this crisis—only diplomatic ones," she stressed. "The Israeli government's destructive and failing campaign in Gaza has driven violent instability throughout the Middle East, which was further exacerbated by Prime Minister Netanyahu's reckless attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus. And the Iranian government's own inexcusable retaliation, which we utterly condemn, has put the lives of people across the region—including communities in Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran—at terrible risk."
While repeatedly urging the the Israel Defense Forces to more precisely target militants in Gaza over the past six months, the Biden administration has also opposed multiple United Nations cease-fire resolution and sent more weapons to Israeli troops while pushing for a support package worth more than $14 billion—on top of the $3.8 billion in annual military aid that the United States gives to Netanyahu's government.
"Preventing a regional war must be the top imperative and this may mean that Joe Biden must finally say 'no' to Israel and Netanyahu," argued Abdi. "Biden's bearhug approach towards Israel has completely failed and has put the U.S. at the risk of entering a war of choice—Netanyahu's choice. Israel launched a military attack on a diplomatic compound, violating international law and all but guaranteeing an Iranian response."
"Netanyahu appears eager to extend and expand the disastrous war in Gaza and draw the U.S. into a regional war and, by continually abetting the war and enabling Israel's worst instincts, Biden may have granted Netanyahu's wish," he said. "Now is the time for restraint and diplomacy, not more unconditional support for military escalation. President Biden must put his foot down to do what's necessary to prevent further military engagement between Israel and Iran and to demand a cease-fire to end the humanitarian tragedy in Gaza."
Israel this weekend fended off most of the Iranian drones and missiles with help from Jordan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Benny Gantz—a member of the Israeli War Cabinet with Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant—said Sunday that his nation now intends to "build a regional coalition and exact a price from Iran, in a way and at a time that suits us."
Biden publicly reaffirmed "America's ironclad commitment to the security of Israel" but a White House official also confirmed to Reuters that during a call with Netanyahu, the president made clear the U.S. will not join any military offensives against Iran.
Denouncing the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' retaliation against Israel, Center for International Policy president and CEO Nancy Okail said Sunday that "escalatory actions by both countries threaten to fan the flames of conflict throughout the region, endangering the lives of millions."
"We appreciate the apparent advance diplomatic efforts by the United States and others behind the scenes—as well U.S., U.K., and Jordanian participation in air defense measures—to minimize the impact of Iran's attack," she continued. "Prioritizing civilian protection and de-escalation was clearly the right approach and should continue to serve as the international community's objectives in the critical days and weeks ahead."
Okail emphasized that "achieving those goals requires not only arresting the escalation of violence between Israel and Iran, but securing a cease-fire in Gaza that halts the killing of civilians, releases the hostages, allows vital humanitarian aid to actually reach those who need it, and lowers tensions in the region. The continued unconditional supply to the Netanyahu government of the arms it is using in Gaza undermines those objectives, as well as U.S. and international law."
"Netanyahu's repeated disregard of U.S. red lines in Gaza, moves to deepen permanent occupation in the Palestinian territory, and escalation with Iran are destabilizing the entire region," she added. "With American forces already drawn into hostilities with the Iranian-backed Houthis and actively engaging Iranian missiles and drones, President Biden cannot afford to let the extremist prime minister continue to have a harmful, undue influence on the course of events. Hopefully, the president's efforts have averted a wider regional war with Iran; we urge him to bring that same level of effort to save the people of Gaza."
Trita Parsi, an expert on Iran and the Middle East and EVP at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said that "if you give Biden (deservingly) credit for having helped prevent the region from falling off the cliff last night, you must also give him credit for helping bring the region to the edge of the cliff in the first place by refusing to restrain Israel and blocking a cease-fire."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Enough Is Enough': Former Top Sanders Aide Urges Israel Arms Embargo
"It is time for President Biden and U.S. partners to finally use their leverage to end this catastrophe."
Feb 29, 2024
As the death toll from Israel's war on the Gaza Strip topped 30,000 on Thursday, President Joe Biden faced renewed pressure to immediately cut off U.S. diplomatic and weapons support for the nearly five-month Israeli assault.
"President Biden must say 'enough is enough' and finally end U.S. support for and complicity in the ongoing carnage in Gaza," said Matt Duss, a former top aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) who is now executive vice president at the Center for International Policy.
"Importantly, he should suspend transfers to Israel of the arms it is using in Gaza," Duss argued, "as he is already obligated to do under U.S. law given the obvious reality—including an open admission by Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu—that the Israeli government is limiting the amount of humanitarian aid delivered to the territory."
"U.S. security assistance has enabled catastrophic civilian harm in Gaza in a way that appears to violate existing U.S. law and policy."
Since Israeli forces began bombarding Gaza in response to the Hamas-led attack on October 7, the Biden administration has repeatedly vetoed United Nations cease-fire resolutions, bypassed Congress to send weapons, and sought over $14 billion atop the $3.8 billion in annual military aid that Israel already gets from the United States.
Duss stressed that Biden should continue efforts to secure a cease-fire, the release of all hostages, and a surge in humanitarian aid. He said that "diplomacy must be prioritized not only as a means of reaching peace, but in order to uphold our own principles. The ongoing provision of arms to Israel despite its open hindrance of humanitarian efforts is a clear departure from those principles."
"A full cease-fire and massive humanitarian relief effort is not just a moral necessity but a security one," he added, warning of the growing risk of a regional conflict. "Nearly five months of slaughter and starvation of civilians in Gaza, and the continued holding and abuse of Israeli hostages, must not continue. It is time for President Biden and U.S. partners to finally use their leverage to end this catastrophe."
After Israeli forces reportedly opened fire on starving Palestinians in Gaza on Thursday, Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said on social media that "Biden's deference to Israel brought this about. Biden has put zero material pressure on Netanyahu."
Rather than using his leverage to "force Israel to let in the aid, Biden instead caves to Netanyahu and considers airdropping aid," Parsi continued. "What a humiliation! Imagine if Biden from the outset had decided NOT to give Israel a blank check?"
The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) similarly released a Thursday statement calling on the United States to "urgently leverage security assistance to push for civilian protection, de-escalation, and an immediate cease-fire."
"The U.S. is Israel's closest ally and provider of billions of dollars of security assistance annually," the group said. "U.S. security assistance has enabled catastrophic civilian harm in Gaza in a way that appears to violate existing U.S. law and policy. The U.S. has publicly pressed Israel on civilian protection; however, without using its leverage by conditioning aid, these messages will continue to be ignored."
CIVIC and over a dozen other groups—including Amnesty International, Oxfam, and Save the Children—last month jointly called on all U.N. member states to "immediately halt the transfer of weapons, parts, and ammunition to Israel and Palestinian armed groups while there is risk they are used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law."
U.S.-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) on Thursday also called for ending the flow of weapons, responding to a recent report from the U.N. high commissioner for human rights about the occupied Palestinian territories.
"The heinous crimes carried out by Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups since October 7 are the abhorrent legacy of decadeslong impunity for unlawful attacks by all parties and Israel's crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution against Palestinians," the group said. "The international community's long-standing unwillingness to act to hold perpetrators to account has fueled grave abuses."
"As Israeli authorities contemplate forcing the over 1 million Palestinians in Rafah to again flee when there's nowhere safe in Gaza—a move that would be unlawful and have catastrophic consequences—states should act to prevent further atrocities," HRW asserted.
Both HRW and Amnesty have said this week that Israel is defying the International Court of Justice, which last month issued binding provisional measures in the ongoing South Africa-led genocide case against the country. Meanwhile, a U.S. case about Biden and other top officials' complicity in genocide is moving through the federal appeals process.
"States should use all forms of leverage, including targeted sanctions and an arms embargo, to press the Israeli government to comply with the binding order and to press the Israeli government and Palestinian armed groups to end unlawful attacks and other grave abuses," HRW said Thursday. "The lives of millions of civilians hang in the balance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy