Follow us on social

google cta
49025171282_274526c187_k

House passes measure ending US support for Saudi war on Yemen

Rep. Ro Khanna has again pushed through this important amendment, but will other forces collude to kill it?

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

The House voted today to pass Rep. Ro Khanna's amendment to end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia's war on Yemen. The amendment passed with 11 Republicans voting in favor, and 11 Democrats voting against, with a final vote of 219 to 207. The passage of the amendment represents a win for those that have pushed to end American complicity in the war on Yemen since the Saudi-led coalition began its aerial bombardment in 2015.

However, this may just be deja vu all over again. The California Democrat passed the same amendment in 2019, but it was removed from the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act, along with many other progressive defense priorities that passed the House vote, but did not survive conference. At the time, House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith faced rebuke for not fighting harder, but he could claim that with the Democrats in the minority, he could not dictate the outcome.

This time, Smith is the chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and so can no longer hide behind the excuse of having his hands tied. However, the concern among progressives like Khanna is that another Yemen amendment also passed the House: House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Gregory Meeks's amendment reflects similar language used by the White House, ending U.S. support for "offensive" Saudi operations. Biden committed to this back in February and paused arms sales to Saudi Arabia, but Saudi air strikes have continued at comparable levels as those observed during the last year of the Trump administration, signaling that U.S. support for offensive operations is unchanged, despite Biden's statement to the contrary.

Relatedly, the Senate version of the NDAA (section 1272) likewise reflects similar language as the Meeks amendment: "Prohibition on support for offensive military operations against the Houthis in Yemen." This increases the likelihood that in the process of reconciliation, Khanna's amendment will be stripped and Meeks's will remain, leaving American involvement unchanged.

In conference, the negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions will take place between HASC chair Adam Smith, Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Jack Reed, as well as Majority leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. White House preferences will also be considered, to avoid the possibility of a presidential veto of the NDAA.

The likelihood that Khanna's amendment will not be included in the final bill raises the possibility that Khanna may once again try to pass a War Powers Resolution to force the White House to comply with the wishes of the majority of members of Congress, who likewise represent American public opinion on the imperative need to withdraw U.S. support for this war.

Although Khanna's amendment may ultimately not achieve its stated objective, the passage of his bill on Saudi Arabia's National Day may drive home the fact that many Americans are tired of successive administrations bowing to Saudi preferences over those of the U.S. public.


Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif) (Web Commons/Creative Commons/Flickr)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Colby: Israel is fighting a different war in Iran
Top image credit: Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby speaks at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. (Screengrab via armed-services.senate.gov)

Colby: Israel is fighting a different war in Iran

QiOSK

The U.S. is pursuing “scoped and reasonable objectives” in its military campaign against Iran and is not seeking regime change through force, argued Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby in a Tuesday Senate hearing.

When pressed about why the campaign began with the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Colby declined to comment directly. “I’m talking about the goals of the American military campaign,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Those are Israeli operations.”

keep readingShow less
US missiles
Top photo credit: . DoD photo by Staff Sgt. Vince Parker, U.S. Air Force.

Trump: We have 'unlimited' weapons to fight 'forever' war

QiOSK

In a startling Truth Social post overnight on Monday, President Donald Trump defied reality and claimed that U.S. weapons were "unlimited" and the U.S. could fight "forever" with "these supplies."


keep readingShow less
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.