Follow us on social

Shutterstock_358800029

Senate barely beats back Ted Cruz's Nord Stream 2 sanctions bill

The measure would have punished Russia and anyone working on the gas project, which is supported by our German partners.

Analysis | Europe

The Senate floor today featured a rare event — a legislative showdown over a crucial current foreign policy issue. Last month, Senate Democrats granted Senator Ted Cruz’s desire for a floor vote on his bill re-imposing sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project in exchange for lifting his hold on President Biden’s ambassador nominations. He just couldn’t bring it home: today Democrats narrowly beat back Cruz’s bill by a 55-43 vote, which failed to gain the necessary 60-vote majority for passage.

But the episode contains important and disturbing lessons about the narrow domestic political boundaries constraining U.S. diplomatic flexibility abroad as we adjust to an increasingly multipolar world.

With its recent shipments of additional arms to Ukraine and its refusal to accommodate stated Russian security concerns during negotiations this week, the Biden Administration can hardly be called soft on Russia (which of course doesn’t stop domestic opponents from trying). The decision to suspend Nord Stream 2 sanctions was not motivated by a desire to accommodate Putin, but by concerns about pushing unilateral economic sanctions against our allies too far.

Germany’s decision to proceed with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline was a decision by the German government and German corporations to purchase badly needed energy resources for German citizens from a neighboring state. Imposing unilateral sanctions on all of the companies involved with the construction and functioning of the pipeline would have swept some German companies into the U.S. sanctions regime. More importantly, it would have been a blatant attempt to use raw U.S. economic muscle to reverse the domestic decision of an important ally.

While European states are and have been highly deferential to U.S. security priorities, such sanctions would have raised questions about U.S. respect for the sovereignty of our allies at a time when Germany is a crucial actor in the attempt to maintain a united European front against Russia. The July 21 joint statement by the U.S. and Germany regarding European security and climate concerns showed that Washington won commitments by Germany to oppose Russia and support Ukraine even as Nord Stream 2 moved forward without sanctions.

Russia’s actions in moving troops to the Ukrainian border raised even more questions about an immediate imposition of Nord Stream 2 sanctions. Imposing these sanctions immediately, disconnected from Russian actions against Ukraine, would have eliminated their potential deterrent value in preventing a Russian invasion. Reserving the card of cutting off Nord Stream for use in case of Russian aggression against Ukraine maximizes U.S. and European economic leverage.  

In the end, these arguments (barely) won the day in the Senate. But the fact that it was such a close call, and that Congress so aggressively questioned the reasonable decision to suspend the sanctions, shows the extreme current politicization of U.S. diplomacy today. It’s remarkable that a prominent Republican senator, at a time when the GOP is claiming that Biden’s domestic policies are having all kinds of disastrous effects, used all of his political capital for almost a year to force a vote attempting to reverse a domestic decision made by a close U.S. ally located four thousand miles away from his constituents.

It’s equally remarkable that he would have carried a majority of his fellow senators. The Biden Administration’s choice to suspend the sanctions reflects exactly the kind of diplomatic maneuvering that will be increasingly necessary to maximize U.S. influence in a world where we are no longer the unquestioned hegemon and do not have the power to simply punish all those who disagree with us.


Sen. Ted Cruz (R) (Shutterstock/Rich Koele)
Analysis | Europe
Sudan al-Fashir El Fasher
Top photo credit: The grandmother of Ikram Abdelhameed looks on next to her family while sitting at a camp for displaced people who fled from al-Fashir to Tawila, North Darfur, Sudan, October 27, 2025. REUTERS/Mohammed Jamal

Sudan's bloody war is immune to Trump's art of the deal

Africa

For over 500 days, the world watched as the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) methodically strangled the last major army garrison in Darfur through siege, starvation, and indiscriminate bombardment. Now, with the RSF’s declaration of control over the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) Sixth Infantry Division headquarters in El Fasher, that strategy has reached its grim conclusion.

The capture of the historic city is a significant military victory for the RSF and its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, though it is victory that has left at least 1,500 civilians dead, including 100 patients in one hospital. It is one that formalizes the de facto partition of the country, with the RSF consolidating its control over all of Darfur, and governing from its newly established parallel government in Nyala, South Darfur.

The SAF-led state meanwhile, clings to the riverine center and the east from Port Sudan.

The Trump administration’s own envoy has now publicly voiced this fear, with the president’s senior adviser for Africa Massad Boulos warning against a "de facto situation on the ground similar to what we’ve witnessed in Libya.”

The fall of El Fasher came just a day after meetings of the so‑called “Quad,” a diplomatic forum which has brought together the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates in Washington. As those meetings were underway, indirect talks were convened in the U.S. capital between a Sudanese government delegation led by Sudan’s foreign minister, and an RSF delegation headed by Algoney Dagalo, the sanctioned paramilitary’s procurement chief and younger brother of its leader.

The Quad’s joint statement on September 12, which paved the way for these developments by proposing a three-month truce and a political process, was hailed as a breakthrough. In reality, it was a paper-thin consensus among states actively fueling opposite sides of the conflict; it was dismissed from the outset by Sudan’s army chief.

keep readingShow less
Trump Xi Jinping
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping react as they hold a bilateral meeting at Gimhae International Airport, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, in Busan, South Korea, October 30, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein TPX

Can Trump finally break with Biden's failed China policy?

Asia-Pacific

UPDATE 10/30: President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping emerged from much anticipated meeting in South Korea Thursday with a broad framework for a deal moving forward. Trump said the U.S. would lower tariffs on China, while Beijing would delay new export restrictions on rare earth minerals for one year and crack down on the trade in fentanyl components.


keep readingShow less
Iraq elections 2025
Top photo credit: Supporters attend a ceremony announcing the Reconstruction and Development Coalition election platform ahead of Iraq’s upcoming parliamentary elections in Karbala, Iraq, October 10, 2025. REUTERS/Thaier Al-Sudani

Iraq faces first quiet election in decades. Don't let that fool you.

Middle East

Iraqis head to the polls on November 11 for parliamentary elections, however surveys predict record-low turnout, which may complicate creation of a government.

This election differs from those before: Muqtada al-Sadr has withdrawn from politics; Hadi al-Ameri’s Badr Organization is contesting the vote independently; and Hezbollah — Iran’s ally in Lebanon — is weakened. Though regional unrest persists, Iraq itself is comparatively stable.

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.