Follow us on social

Yemen

Critical House vote could end support to Saudi in Yemen

With Biden continuing Trump-era policies, it's up to Congress now to yank the purse strings and end the brutality.

Analysis | Middle East

Biden pledged to end American support for offensive operations in Yemen, including relevant arms sales, during his first foreign policy speech as president. Yet almost eight months later, the U.S. continues to enable the Saudi war on Yemen, primarily by keeping the Saudi air force aloft. Without U.S. maintenance and spare parts, the Saudis would be unable to conduct air raids on Yemen. In this year alone, the Saudis have run 866 raids, amounting to a total of 23,470 air raids during the war thus far.

Airstrikes have killed or injured at least 18,616 Yemeni civilians since 2015. When airstrikes hit key infrastructure, they also killed over 200,000 Yemeni civilians by depriving them of food, water, and health care. The Saudi tactic of blockading fuel imports from entering Yemen has increased the scale of famine. In early 2021, the UN anticipated that 400,000 children under age five would die of starvation this year. At present, the UN characterizes over 20 million Yemenis as needing humanitarian assistance, and over 12 million as experiencing acute need. The UN considers Yemen the world’s “worst humanitarian crisis.” While many factors contribute to Yemenis’ misery, food insecurity is most severe in areas most impacted by violence. 

The Saudi air force has imposed a no-fly zone over Sana’a International Airport since first bombing it in 2015. As a result, 32,000 critically ill Yemenis have been stranded in the capital region, unable to travel abroad to seek treatment. By withdrawing maintenance support for the Saudi air force, the U.S. would allow the Sana’a International Airport to re-open.

Despite years of bombardment, the Saudis have failed to prevent the Houthis, or Ansar Allah, from seizing and holding territory. The Saudi war has instead only empowered the Houthis by imbuing them with the legitimacy of resisting foreign aggression. The longer the U.S. continues to back the Saudis, the longer the war will drag on. 

In 2019, Congress acted on a decisive bipartisan basis to constrain U.S. support for the Saudi war, which was only stopped by Trump’s veto. Biden’s initial commitment to diplomacy heartened many who have long worked to foster peace in Yemen. Yet after eight months of effort by Special Envoy Tim Lenderking, early hopes that the U.S. might be able to help move the parties towards resolution have faded. While the United States cannot force Yemen’s warring parties to the negotiating table, Congress can end U.S. complicity in the Saudi onslaught. Deprived of critical U.S. support, the Saudis will have to re-evaluate their approach to Yemen.

This week, several amendments have been proposed to the NDAA regarding U.S. involvement. Of these, the amendment most likely to effectively constrain the Saudis is co-sponsored by Representatives Ro Khanna, Pramila Jayapal, Adam Schiff, Adam Smith, Peter DeFazio, Katie Porter, and Peter Welch. Their amendment “terminates U.S. military logistical support, and the transfer of spare parts to Saudi warplanes conducting aerial strikes against the Houthis in Yemen and permanently ends intelligence sharing that enables offensive strikes.” Unlike more limited and conditional restrictions on aid to the Saudis such as those laid out in the Yemen-related amendment by Representative Gregory Meeks, the Khanna amendment would immediately and decisively end U.S. support for the war.

Congressional action is imperative because the Biden administration has made clear that it will not prevent Saudi violence. The frequency of Saudi airstrikes on Yemen under Biden has been consistent with the last year of the Trump administration. Although initially pausing the sale of U.S. weapons to Saudi Arabia, the Biden administration just announced its first military deal with the Saudis: a $500 million contract for the U.S. to maintain Black Hawk and Apache attack helicopters. This violates Biden’s stated commitment to end support for offensive operations, and the Biden administration has never publicly clarified exactly how it would define such operations, despite multiple requests from Congress to do so.

Congress must summon the same determination they showed in 2019 to end U.S. entanglement in this devastating war.


Taiz, Yemen, October 2019. (Sutterstock/anasalhajj)
Analysis | Middle East
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

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.