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 Eliot Engel lost his seat last November — said he has withdrawn the letter, saying he got what he wanted without it.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.
Members of Congress are wrapping up August recess in their home districts and preparing to return to Capitol Hill. And if public polling is any indication, they’ve been facing constituents who want to know why their taxpayer dollars are enabling the carnage in Gaza, and what Congress is doing to put an end to it.
If they are smart, lawmakers can work to end U.S. complicity by supporting the “Block the Bombs” bill, a proposal to block sales of bombs and explosive shells to Israel.
Introduced by Reps. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) in May, the bill, H.R. 3565, is the best benchmark for House legislators’ commitment to stop arming atrocities in Gaza. It is the only House bill proposed to do so, and it is gaining momentum, with 30 other legislators already cosponsoring.
Block the Bombs would prohibit the U.S. government from selling Israel the weapons most implicated in the decimation of Gaza: bombs, bomb guidance kits, artillery shells, and mortar shells. When used in populated areas, these types of weapons kill civilians and destroy the vital infrastructure that keeps them alive. Extensivedocumentation by human rights groups and investigators ties these weapons to war crimes in Gaza.
The Israeli military has killed more than 55,000 Palestinians in its nearly two-year assault on Gaza. Thousands more are dying from starvation and disease caused by Israeli government restrictions on humanitarian aid and attacks on vital medical, water, and sanitation infrastructure. The latest alert from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification — the world's leading body on hunger — warned that the “worst-case scenario of Famine is currently playing out in the Gaza Strip.”
All of this is made possible with U.S. weapons and funding. The Biden administration sent an enormous amount of weapons to the Israeli military in the first ten months of the war alone. Tens of billions of dollars in weapons sales have gone forward since, and the Trump administrationremoved the limited restrictions President Biden put in place. In February this year alone, the Trump administration notified Congress of over $11 billion more in lethal weapons to Israel.
These weapons kill and maim Palestinian civilians in Gaza. In March, the Israeli military dropped a U.S.-made bomb on a crowded cafe, killing at least 26 people. In April, Israeli forces used another American-made bomb to attack a displacement camp, killing dozens of Palestinians. U.S. weapons sales also send a clear political signal of American support for Israel’s conduct and the near total siege of Gaza.
The United States has the leverage to end this catastrophe and demand humanitarian access, the protection of civilians, and a ceasefire — but refuses to use it.
The U.S. Senate has taken multiple votes aimed at blocking arms sales to Israel using the Joint Resolution of Disapproval mechanism built into the Arms Export Control Act, the main body of legislation governing U.S. arms transfers. In July, 27 Senators voted to block a sale of rifles to Israel — the largest number of U.S. senators opposing arms to Israel to date — citing Israeli restrictions on aid as children in Gaza starve to death before our eyes.
But these sorts of votes aren’t possible in the House of Representatives due to differences in procedural rules. As a result, House members have had few clear-cut opportunities to vote to stop arms sales to Israel. A recent vote didn’t deal with the weapons used to kill civilians in Gaza, and past votes havecentered on huge funding packages covering a wide range of purposes.
Without a record of votes, the key question constituents should ask their representatives is: have you co-sponsored the Block the Bombs bill?
Sixty percent of Americans oppose the Israeli military’s actions in Gaza. If that statistic is any indication, the Block the Bombs bill has ample room to build support in the House of Representatives. Cosponsorship of the bill sends a clear message that many lawmakers have been too slow to say: as Palestinian civilians die of starvation, under gunfire, and in near-constant bombings, American weapons sales to the Israeli government cannot continue.
A majority of Senate Democrats voted last month against a major arms sale to Israel. It’s time for the House to catch up, and Block the Bombs is a way to do that.
The 12-day war between Israel and Iran in 2025 shattered long-held assumptions, thrusting U.S.–Iran relations into uncharted territory. The conflict, a dramatic escalation of decades-long tensions, has left the Middle East teetering on the edge of broader instability. As the dust settles, the United States faces a critical juncture in its approach to Iran — one that could redefine the region for decades.
Four plausible scenarios loom large, each carrying profound implications for global security, regional stability, and American foreign policy.
Escalation without end
The first scenario is mutual escalation without end: a volatile cycle of strikes, sabotage, and sanctions that has long defined U.S.–Iran relations and reached a new peak in the recent war. In this future, Iran rebuilds its nuclear and military capabilities, refusing to suspend enrichment but stopping short of weaponization. Washington and Jerusalem, viewing this as intolerable, respond with more sanctions, covert operations, or even another major strike.
This path allows leaders in all three capitals to avoid compromise and project toughness. Yet it is fraught with peril. Miscalculations — already evident in the recent conflict — could ignite a full-scale regional war, drawing in actors from Lebanon to the Persian Gulf. Escalation offers the illusion of control while courting disaster.
A deal if someone blinks
Another possibility is a return to serious negotiations, but that would require one side to yield on the core issue: uranium enrichment.
Under the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran was permitted a token enrichment program under tight constraints and the most intrusive inspections regime ever implemented in a non-nuclear weapons state. The agreement was repeatedlyvalidated by both the IAEA and U.S. intelligence.
Earlier this year, Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff appeared open to a similar framework. But under pressure from Israel — and Trump’s drive to outdo Obama — the administrationreverted to the maximalist demand of zero enrichment, a red line Iran has refused to cross throughout the over two-decade nuclear standoff.
Even so, diplomacy wasn’t entirely dead. One creative proposal under discussion involved a regional enrichment “consortium” including Iran and U.S. partners in the Persian Gulf, designed to manage and monitor enrichment jointly. And a sixth round of talks had been scheduled, but Israel’s strike on Iran scuttled the process — cutting short what reports suggested could have been a breakthrough.
Yet structural barriers persisted. U.S. policy remains shaped by pro-Israel hawks and regime change ideologues who view diplomacy as a detour, not a solution. Indeed, even if Iran suspended enrichment, Netanyahu would likely have shifted the goalposts to missiles or regional disputes to keep hostility alive.
For Israel’s current leadership, ongoing U.S.–Iran tension has served a broader strategic purpose since the end of the Cold War: justifying Washington’s regional military presence, securing unconditional U.S. backing, sidelining the Palestinian question, and advancing a “Greater Israel” agenda rooted in conquest of Gaza, the West Bank, and other neighboring countries. In this calculus, Iran remains the indispensable scapegoat.
Could that posture shift? Analysts Ali Vaez and Danny Citrinowicz have proposed a bold Iran-Israel non-aggression pact addressing mutual threat perceptions. In theory, Trump — hungry for a “historic deal” — might see it as an opportunity. Yet under Khamenei, who distrusts Washington and views Israel as irredeemably hostile, and Netanyahu, who exploits the Iranian specter to advance his political and ideological ambitions, it remains implausible. Prudent? Certainly. Possible? Unlikely without seismic political change.
An Iranian nuclear dash
A third path sees Iran, cornered by unrelenting pressure, dashing for a nuclear weapon as its ultimate deterrent. The temptation is clear for a state facing existential threats from Israel and the U.S. But the risks are immense.
Even if Iran succeeded in building a nuclear arsenal, it would face intensified isolation, a potential regional arms race, and ongoing covert warfare.
Russia’s experience offers a cautionary tale: nuclear weapons have not shielded it from economic strain or attritional conflicts. For Iran, a bomb would not resolve its economic woes, lift sanctions, or deter sabotage. While the temptation to cross the nuclear threshold may grow, it remains a risky and likely self-defeating move.
Strategic patience and an eastward pivot
The fourth scenario is one of strategic patience. Iran maintains the status quo, engaging in tactical diplomacy without expecting breakthroughs. It rebuilds its missile and air defense systems, deepens military and economic ties with China and Russia, and fundamentally gives up on hopes of rapprochement with the U.S. and Europe. This path reflects Supreme Leader Khamenei’s long-term calculus: survive, consolidate, and wait for the global balance of power to shift as U.S. attention inevitably pivots elsewhere.
Unlike the volatility of Scenario 1, this is a strategy of endurance. Iran avoids dramatic moves and instead plays the long game — weathering sanctions, absorbing strikes, and relying on time and persistence to outlast American pressure. The lure of this option is growing, especially as Chinese military technology has shown an impressive performance in Pakistan’s recent war with India. For Tehran, which desperately needs more advanced defense capabilities, Beijing’s emergence as a reliable supplier of cutting-edge systems makes the eastward pivot even more appealing.
This drift, however, is not without costs. It entrenches Iran’s isolation from U.S. and European markets and risks over-dependence on China and Russia. Yet it remains consistent with the Islamic Republic’s post-revolutionary ethos of defiance and self-reliance — allowing Iran to survive, consolidate, and bet that a multipolar world will eventually weaken America’s grip on the Middle East.
The real question
The question U.S. and European policymakers must confront is simple: What actual choice is Iran being given? If the strategy remains regime change dressed up as “maximum pressure,” then we must be honest about where that leads. The Islamic Republic will not disappear in a puff of sanctions or airstrikes. Nor will it collapse neatly into a Western-style democracy.
The more plausible outcome is far darker: instability, fragmentation, and the specter of civil war in a nation of 90 million at the heart of the Middle East. A broken Iran would not be contained within its borders. It would send shockwaves through the Persian Gulf, Iraq, Central Asia, and the Caucasus — destabilizing an already volatile region and creating crises far worse than the nuclear program itself.
Which is why the challenge today is not simply halting Iran’s nuclear progress. It's figuring out what endgame Washington and Jerusalem are actually preparing for — and whether they are prepared to live with the consequences.
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends the U.S. Independence Day reception, known as the annual "Fourth of July" celebration, hosted by Newsmax, in Jerusalem August 13, 2025. REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun/Pool (ReutersConnect)
As Israel’s war on Gaza escalates with IDF troops now moving to take over Gaza City, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been deploying more extreme language than usual to describe his plans for “total” victory over Hamas. He has eschewed ceasefire talks, and is instead leaning into his expansive vision for a “Greater Israel,” which not only includes an Israeli takeover of Gaza but of neighboring territories too.
His public remarks and media appearances over the last week have caused some to observe that the prime minister may be taking his approach, which is already heavily influenced by the hardline right wing in his cabinet, to an even more maximalist level.
For example, Netanyahu completely dismissed the idea of a political solution for Gaza at a Newsmax conference hosted in Jerusalem last week.
“In the search for an alternative to victory, this idea emerged — what they call a ‘political solution,’ which is nothing more than another term for defeat and surrender. That will not happen,” Netanyahu said in Hebrew.
During the same remarks, Netanyahu appeared to be throwing his own military under the bus, suggesting IDF chiefs who had been calling for the Gaza campaign to end have lost their commitment to “victory.” “I will not give up on victory. The people of Israel will not give up on victory,” Netanyahu proclaimed, alleging that “victory” was now the last word in the army’s lexicon.
Appearing on Israeli media channel i24 last week, Netanyahu also said that Israel was looking for other countries to take in Palestinians, just as Trump had proposed to do back in Spring. “I think that the right thing to do, even according to the laws of war as I know them, is to allow the population to leave, and then you go in with all your might against the enemy who remains there,” Netanyahu said.
During the i24 interview, Netanyahu also endorsed the Greater Israel vision, which calls for Israel to expand to include other Middle Eastern countries. Arab nations widely condemned his comments, alleging that Netanyahu’s support for that idea threatens their security, and risks peace prospects in general.
And at the Newsmax conference, moreover, he also said there was “no starvation” in Gaza. “Hamas needs ozempic,” Netanyahu mused, referring to the popular weight loss drug.
RS spoke with experts about what Netanyahu’s more recent rhetoric means for his political trajectory, and for the future of Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip. Broadly, observers suggest his amped up language points to a grim reality in which Netanyahu’s government has stripped away any pretense of a political solution and is closer than ever to carrying out a maximalist endgame of absolute control over the Gaza strip, with no regard for the Palestinians who live there.
Unpacking Netanyahu's rhetoric
Israeli political analyst Ori Goldberg said Netanyahu, as a political leader, operates on a complex duality: his long-term reign as prime minister gives him a veneer of political stability, but also gives him leeway to make hard, even risky, choices for the sake of Israel’s future.
In this respect, Netanyahu’s recent rhetoric, which Goldberg describes as “more extreme” than usual, showcases his willingness to commit to these high-stakes choices — even if they are irreversible, or otherwise risk Israel's security or international standing.
Netanyahu “is going for broke, he's committed. He doesn't have any other options,” Goldberg observed. “He is playing ‘chicken’ with the international community. He has made his choice and will be happy to let both Israel and Palestine go down in flames.”
Israel is reportedly in talks to send Gazans to South Sudan, and Israel is sending aid to the impoverished country as a likely sweetener. Whether the transfer of Gazans materializes does not matter, said Goldberg.
“It's about making noise,” he charged. “It goes to show that Israel still has some international clout,” and that it has partners it can make political deals with, “even if [it has] to bribe them into it.”
Carol Daniel-Kasbari, Quincy Institute non-resident fellow and senior associate director of the Conflict Resolution Program at the Carter Center, told RS that Netanyahu’s rhetoric “point[s] to an endgame of open-ended Israeli security dominance, shrinking space for a two-state outcome, and a coalition calculus that rewards ideological consistency over diplomatic compromise.”
Daniel-Kasbari said Netanyahu “governs with partners to his right whose agendas prioritize settlement expansion and permanent Israeli control.” Considering this political reality, "rejecting a negotiated track for Gaza and hinting at Gazan ‘emigration’ are not rhetorical flourishes; they’re policy signals,” she said, also highlighting Netanyahu’s historical opposition to a sovereign Palestinian state west of the Jordan river.
Daniel Levy, President of the U.S./Middle East Project, said the Israeli prime minister has always supported this “Greater Israel” vision and cautioned not to over-interpret his comments.
As per the i24 interview, however, Netanyahu now seems to be endorsing an “expansive definition which has been more regularly referenced by [Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel] Smotrich,” Levy pointed out. Smotrich has repeatedly advocated for a Greater Israel that would include parts of Palestine, Syria, and Jordan.
Nevertheless, Levy said Netanyahu has always “been very clear, including presenting bills to the Israeli parliament, that he opposes a Palestinian state, seeks to expand Israel's borders, and he has acted on these intentions, including the intention to annex Palestinian territories.”
“This is indeed a decades-long project," he said.
Will Israel annex Gaza?
Israel is now positioning itself to force Palestinians out of Gaza City, where the IDF, pursuing a plan the Israeli security cabinet approved earlier this month, aims to displace about one million people. To that end, many Israelis are critical of such plans because of their perceived capacity to harm the remaining hostages, further weaken the IDF, and worsen the humanitarian crisis on the ground.
“Will Israel take this next step and carry out crimes against humanity after they have been officially approved by the Israeli government?” Goldberg asked, noting the obvious U.S. complicity — where Washington has unconditionally transferred bombs, guns, ammo, and other supplies necessary for an Israeli military incursion and occupation. “Without being armed by the United States, nothing will happen.”
For its part, Washington has frequently deferred to Jerusalem regarding its possible plans for the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Early this month, Trump said it was “pretty much up to Israel,” to decide whether it would pursue occupying the territory.
Netanyahu said earlier this month that Israel would proceed with this takeover, deeming it “the best way to end the war and the best way to end it speedily."
“If Israel decides to do this, the images will be horrible,” said Goldberg, who doubts that a complete takeover is possible, given the practical and logistical hurdles Israel would need to clear to achieve that goal.
“But then again…Netanyahu is so committed to this course, he has no other option. The Israeli military is desperate for a win,” he added.
“All of this may happen. And if it does, then, there really is no going back.”
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.