Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1903519243

US announces $2.5B arms deal on anniversary of Egypt's Arab Spring

On a day in which many are reflecting on their failed democratic revolution, Biden gives the authoritarian now in power more weapons.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Yesterday marked the anniversary of Egypt’s democratic revolution in 2011, when Egyptians took to the streets in demonstrations, marches, and other acts of resistance to the tyrannical rule of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. 

The U.S. government, inexplicably, saw fit to honor the occasion by announcing, not one, but two, massive arms sales to the Egyptian military, worth more than $2.5 billion. 

This is not time to be providing more U.S. military equipment to Egypt’s current authoritarian leader, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, whose regime has engaged in extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary detentions, and a host of other human rights abuses, according to the State Department. As Rep. Tom Malinowksi (D-NJ) has noted, "In exchange for the favors that Egypt gets from the White House, they don’t actually do anything for us. This is not a situation where we are trading off human rights for something that advances the U.S. national interest. Egypt...contributes nothing to the goals of peace and security.”

As Seth Binder, an arms sales expert and Advocacy Director at the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) first noted on Twitter, this arms sale announcement also happened the same day Congress called on the Biden administration to withhold around $130 million in military aid to Egypt because, as Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) explained, in Egypt, “the human rights situation more broadly has only deteriorated over the last few months.”

Despite this plea from Congress, just hours later the Biden administration announced arms sales to Egypt worth nearly twenty times the amount of military aid Murphy and others suggested be withheld from Egypt. This led to a rather testy press conference at the State Department yesterday when a reporter asked “what is the point of withholding $130 million in foreign military financing when you’re just going to turn around and sell them $2.5 billion in weapons?” 

The State Department spokesperson did not directly respond to this question, perhaps because the real answer is that announcing these arms sales just hours after the U.S. Congress flags serious human rights concerns with the Egyptian government, on a day when Egyptians are celebrating the anniversary of a revolution that sought to oust a corrupt and oppressive government, sends a clear message: the U.S. is choosing militarization over sound foreign policy.

But, this is nothing new–this is U.S. foreign policy when it comes to Egypt. The Security Assistance Monitor at the Center for International Policy has noted it’s, “business as usual,” for the U.S. to provide arms to Egypt despite myriad concerns with its authoritarian and destabilizing leaders. Willliam Hartung and Seth Binder have also noted, in a report that tracked more than $41 billion in arms sales to Egypt since 1987, that the return on investment to the U.S. has been nominal, at best, as evidence by the Sisi regime which is widely considered to have one of the worst human rights records in the world. 

Authorizing additional arms sales to Egypt is worse than throwing good money after bad; it’s throwing bad money after bad. If it’s the definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results, it’s the definition of U.S. foreign policy insanity to keep arming authoritarian regimes that have proven, over-and-over, they will not change. Continued failures to learn this lesson in Egypt–and throughout the world, for that matter–will continue to undermine U.S. foreign policy.


Cairo, Egypt, 2011, Young Egyptian girl chanting slogans at an anti-government protest in Tahrir quare, Cairo Egypt (Shutterstock/John Wreford)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

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.