House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) surprised progressive and restraint-leaning foreign policy circles on Monday saying he would ask the White House to pause an arms sale to Israel amid its ongoing military campaign in Gaza, only to quickly backtrack the request.
The reversal comes as progressives and Democrats on Capitol Hill are putting pressure on the Biden administration to do more to foment a ceasefire between Hamas and the Israeli military amid mounting civilian casualties on both sides, including children.
The administration notified Congress of the sale on May 5, but Meeks said Monday he was unaware of the sale and that he would send a letter to the White House asking the president to place a hold for further congressional review.
“The United States should not stand idly by while crimes against humanity are being committed with our backing," Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said of the arms deal. “It would be appalling for the Biden administration to go through with $735 million in precision-guided weaponry to [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu without any strings attached in the wake of escalating violence and attacks on civilians."
But now Meeks — who recently took over as HFAC chair after staunchly pro-Israel and more hawkish Rep. Eliot Engel lost his seat last November — said he has withdrawn the letter, saying he got what he wanted without it.
“What we wanted to do is to have a dialogue,” he said. “The purpose of the letter initially was to make sure that there was dialogue.”
“Not sure who needs to hear this,” Win Without War Executive Director Stephen Miles said, “but a briefing is not a pause on the sale.”
A progressive House aide told CNN: "This is what we should have expected in electing Meeks. He sent us a little flash bulb of progressive hope last night. We genuinely feel dumb believing it was real."
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
As the Ukraine War passed its 1,000-day mark this week, the departing Biden administration made a significant policy shift by lifting restrictions on key weapons systems for the Ukrainians — drawing a wave of fury, warnings and a retaliatory ballistic missile strike from Moscow.
On Thursday, Russia launched what the Ukrainian air force thought to be a non-nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) attack on the Ukrainian city of Dnipro, which if true, would be the first time such weapons were used and mark a major escalatory point in the war.
In a televised address on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed that Moscow launched a new, hypersonic intermediate-range ballistic missile. He added that the long-range strikes from Ukraine this week have given the regional conflict the elements of a global one, and that Russia could use the missiles against countries that have allowed Ukraine to strike deep inside Russia.
U.S. officials have confirmed that the new Russian missile, called the "Oreshnik," is based on the design of Russia’s longer-range RS-26 Rubezh intermediate ballistic missile (IRBM). It can carry multiple nuclear warheads but was armed with conventional weapons in the Thursday attack.
The new missile was experimental and Russia likely possessed only a handful of them, officials said.
The strike was seen largely as a response to the Biden administration’s authorization for the Ukrainian military to use the American-made ATACMS missile system to strike deeper into Russian territory. On Tuesday Ukraine reportedly used the system to fire six missiles into Russia’s western Bryansk region, which Moscow said it successfully defended.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy led a months-long effort for NATO authorization to strike deeper into Russia. On Tuesday, according to CNN, he said his military now has the U.S. ATACMS system and its own long-range capabilities, and that “we will use all of this.” The Ukrainian military also struck Russian targets with UK-made long-range Storm Shadow missiles on Wednesday. Some Russian officials warned that the strikes could lead to a “third world war.”
Moscow’s position for months has been that an attack on Russian territory with British, French or U.S.-made missiles would constitute direct warfare against those countries. Russian ambassador to the UK Andrei Kelin doubled down on this threat after Ukraine fired UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles into Russia on Wednesday.
"Britain and the UK are now directly involved in this war, because this firing cannot happen without NATO staff, British staff as well," Kelin said.
Earlier this week, as an apparent warning to the West, Putin signed an update to Russian nuclear policy that lowers the threshold for a retaliatory strike.
The revised document says Russia could use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear or WMD strike against Russia or its allied nations, or in response to aggression against Russia or Belarus with conventional weapons threatening their sovereignty or territorial integrity.
The doctrine also declares that an attack by a non-nuclear power supported by a nuclear power is considered a joint attack, and that an attack from one member of NATO would be considered an attack from all members.
The White House said the policy came at no surprise, and that it will not respond with any alteration of its own nuclear policies.
Other Ukraine News This Week:
The U.S. gave Ukraine further slack later on Tuesday, with The Washington Post reporting that Biden approved the provision of antipersonnel mines to Ukraine — undoing his own policy from 2022.
According to CNN, the Americans expect Ukraine to use these mines to defend their own territory, not as an offensive tactic in Russia. Russian forces, on the other hand, have been using similar devices on the front lines since their invasion began in 2022.
Still, Biden’s move could prove controversial, the Post said, citing their indiscriminate nature and a 160-member international treaty banning their use based on an elevated risk to civilians.
The Biden administration’s policy shifts came after a violent weekend of Russian attacks: according to CBS, Moscow launched a drone and missile assault on Ukraine on Sunday, targeting energy infrastructure ahead of the winter and killing scores of civilians.
Biden is just under two months away from exiting office, with the incoming Trump administration having made clear in recent months its intentions to try to end the war.
In Monday’s press briefing, State Department Matthew Miller repudiated the idea of presidents working together across terms when asked about how typical it might be for a lame-duck president to make significant foreign policy decisions like enabling the long-range missiles.
“...the President was elected to a four-year term and the American people expect him to govern for a four-year term and make the decisions that he believes are appropriate,” Miller said. “There is no one who thinks that for the first two months of the next term they’re supposed to continue to carry out the decisions made by this President.”
Miller condemned Russia’s rhetorical responses to the long-range missile attack in Tuesday’s press briefing.
“Since the beginning of its war of aggression against Ukraine, [Russia] has sought to coerce and intimidate both Ukraine and other countries around the world through irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and behavior,” Miller said. “Despite what Russia says, neither the United States nor NATO pose any threat to Russia. Russia’s irresponsible and bellicose rhetoric will not do anything to improve Russia’s security.”
“This policy in itself just highlights Russia’s hypocrisy,” he added. “Russia is suggesting here that they would use or could use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state if they undertake the same kind of aggression that Russia itself is inflicting upon Ukraine and its people.”
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: A Mirage 2000 fighter jet outfitted with UK Storm Shadow missiles (file photo/Reuters) and the UK Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer and his wife Victoria at Number 10 Downing Street upon his appointment, May 2024. (Picture by Rory Arnold/ No 10 Downing Street)
The UK has apparently given the greenlight for Kyiv to use its Storm Shadow missiles for attacking inside Russia. While the British government has not commented publicly, the Ukrainian military used the missiles to strike Russia for the first time on Wednesday.
In keeping with most British military “decisions,” its actions Wednesday followed the Biden Administration’s approval to allow Ukraine to use its own long-range ATACMS in the same way.
The British government seems to have forgotten that two months from now, the Biden administration will no longer be in office and the Trump White House may not take kindly to what some of its future members see as British support for a preemptive Biden attempt to wreck Trump’s peace agenda in Ukraine.
From the point of view of Britain’s own security interests (which do not appear to play any part in British establishment thinking about Ukraine), British citizens just have to hope that after January the Russian government does not retaliate against the UK — for if it does, they may not receive much sympathy from Washington.
The official argument for the ATACMS and Storms Shadows decision is to put Ukraine in a stronger position before peace talks are initiated by Trump. Russia seems certain to try to gain as much territory as possible before these talks begin, and the Ukrainian armed forces are in serious danger of collapse.
This is a dangerous gamble, because the missiles (which are guided to their targets by U.S. personnel) risk infuriating Russia without giving really critical help to Ukraine. It is especially dangerous for the UK, because if Putin feels impelled to live up to its promises to retaliate without attacking U.S. interests and alienating Trump, he could well feel that the UK makes a safertarget — it is at least a gamble based on rational calculations.
This is not exactly what the government and the British security establishment have beensaying. Like some East European governments, and influential political voices in Western Europe, the British government is still talking of helping Ukraine “win” — not to achieve a better compromise.
Like the Biden administration, British and NATO language of the “irreversibility” of Ukrainian NATO membership, and the necessity of Russia leaving the Ukrainian territory it has occupied suggest opposition to any conceivable peace settlement that Trump could seek to achieve. If the UK is seen by Trump to be deliberately sabotaging his peace agenda, this will be hugely damaging to the American-British relationship, and put Britain in an extremely exposed position.
Such an interpretation by Trump is likely to be encouraged by the talk in Washington, London and European capitals about “Trump-proofing” aid to Ukraine, and suggestions by European analysts that Europe both should and can support Ukraine in continuing to fight even if the Trump administration withdraws U.S. support.
At ameeting in Warsaw this week, European foreign ministers pledged (without giving any details) to increase aid to Ukraine. Furthermore – in words, which if meant seriously, would make peace impossible —declared:
“(that we) remain steadfast in our support for a just and lasting peace for Ukraine, based on the UN Charter, reaffirming that peace can only be negotiated with Ukraine, with European, American and G7 partners by its side, and in making sure that the aggressor will bear consequences, also financial ones, of its illegal acts that violate rules set out in the UN Charter.”
This is lunacy. It is not even likely that Europe will be able to sustain present levels of economic aid to Ukraine for long. Budgets all over Europe are under intense strain, leading to bitter politicalstruggles. The German coalition government has just collapsed due to a fight between its constituent parties over how to pay simultaneously for support to Ukraine, German re-armament, German industrial regeneration and social welfare.
Berlin had already announced radical cuts to its bilateral aid to Ukraine. For the European Union to take up the full burden of existing European aid — let alone replace that of the U.S. — would almost certainly require acceptance of EU control over collective European debt, through a huge issue of “Defense Eurobonds.”
This would, however, likely be opposed by dominant elements in the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which seems certain to be the dominant partner in a new coalition after elections now due in February. Their opposition stems not only from their own convictions, but also from the fear that ceding German economic sovereignty in this way would deeply anger many Germans and give a strong boost to support for populist opposition parties of the Right and Left.
As to Europe replacing the U.S. in terms of military support for Ukraine, this looks absurd. In critical areas like air defense systems, European military industries are not remotely capable even of providing for their own countries’ defense, let alone of providing what Ukraine needs.
Earlier this year, European governments rebuffed Ukraine’s appeal for more air defense weapons. These shortages extend across the board. Almost unbelievably, the British government’s decision on Storm Shadows occurred simultaneously with an announcement of further deep cuts to the UK armed forces, including its last amphibious assault ships and a large proportion of its transport helicopters.
Europe can of course buy from the U.S. — but only if Washington is capable of supplying systems for Ukraine and for Israel and adequately supplying America’s own forces for possible war with China. Is it likely that a Trump administration angered by Ukrainian and European rejection of a peace deal would prioritize weapons for Ukraine, even if the Europeans were paying for them?
The utterly confused state of British and European thinking about the military realities of the Ukraine conflict and Europe’s role is in large part due to the pitiful ignorance of military matters on the part of politicians — and therefore governments — who with the rarest of exceptions have never served in the military themselves, or bothered to study military issues, or devoted serious study to any foreign country.
This makes them completely dependent on advice from their foreign and security establishments; and for decades now, these establishments have outsourced to Washington not just responsibility for their national security, but thinking about it.
If you ask most members of European think tanks to define the specifically British, or French, or Danish interests in the Ukraine War, they are not merely incapable of answering, they clearly regard the very question as somehow illegitimate and disloyal to the U.S.-mandated “rules-based order.”
But the America to which these Europeans are loyal is the old U.S. foreign and security establishment — not the America of Trump, which they do not understand and deeply hate and fear (just as they do their own populist oppositions). Indeed, until a very few months ago the great majority of European politicians and experts simply refused to believe that Trump could possibly win the elections.
Many have now lost their heads entirely, and are just running around in circles. Others, like the Poles and Balts, have their heads firmly screwed on, but back to front.
As to the British government and security establishment, since the U.S. elections they have resembled their predecessor King Charles I, who according to legend went on talking for half an hour after his head had been cut off. Perhaps given time they can grow a new head of their very own. But in the meantime, for people in this embarrassing position, a period of silent inaction would seem to be the wise course to adopt.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defense minister Yoav Gallant during a press conference in the Kirya military base in Tel Aviv , Israel , 28 October 2023. ABIR SULTAN POOL/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
On Thursday the International Court of Justice (ICC) issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as a member of Hamas leadership.
The warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were for charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes. The court unanimously agreed that the prime minister and former defense minister “each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.”
“The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024,” the court detailed in its allegations.
The ICC also charged Hamas leader Ibrahim Al-Masri for mass killings during the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, including rape and hostage taking.
A plan suggested by former IDF general, Giora Eiland, called for the explicit emptying out of northern Gaza and the labeling of all remaining civilians as military targets, as well as the purposeful blockage of humanitarian aid. Netanyahu reportedly did not agree to the plan, but evidence points to aspects of the plan being enacted.
“The ICC decision shows once more how out of sync Biden's Gaza policy is with both American and international law,” says the Quincy Institute’s Executive Vice President Trita Parsi. “Biden has sacrificed America's international standing to arm and protect leaders who the international courts have deemed to be war criminals.”
The ICC’s move comes just one day after unprecedented votes in the U.S. Senate to end the sale of certain offensive weapons to Israel. The measures ultimately failed, with the White House telling senators that they would be supporting Iran and Hamas should they vote to curb weapons sales to Israel.
Because of the ICC warrants, Netanyahu or Gallant could be arrested upon entering a nation that has recognized the ICC and its rulings. However, Israel is among dozens of other countries, including the United States, that do not recognize the court’s jurisdiction.
After warrants were requested in October, Israel reacted by challenging the jurisdiction of the ICC in the matter, but that challenge has been rejected. “Israel's reaction — that no other democracy has been treated this way by the ICC — is indicative of how perverted certain approaches to international law have become,” said Parsi. “Israel essentially argues that because it defines itself as a democracy, it should be above the law. That war-crimes, apartheid, and genocide are ok as long as the perpetrator identifies as democratic. This approach — creating different sets of laws and standards for different countries — is a recipe for global instability and a threat to American security.”
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.