Follow us on social

2021-05-05t000000z_1975888773_rc2l9n92zggq_rtrmadp_3_egypt-turkey-scaled

Why I want to kill Biden's massive US-Egyptian arms deal

Washington must stop rewarding this strongman, whose tyrannical government tortures children and makes a mockery of justice.

Analysis | Africa

According to tradition, King Menes united the two lands of Egypt about 5,000 years ago. Although Egypt appears as a single state on the globe today, American foreign policy still treats the country as though it was two completely different lands; one a critical ally deserving of American aid, and one a tyrannical nightmare unworthy of American security assistance.  

A State Department human rights report details how President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi converted a country into a prison. Among other horrors, Egyptian security forces engage in extrajudicial killings, torture, as well as harsh crackdowns on anyone who wishes to practice the right to freedom of speech. As a result of Egypt’s abysmal human rights record, the Biden Administration recently blocked $130 million in annual security assistance. 

Before applauding this supposed principled act in solidarity with the long-suffering Egyptian people, keep in mind that, in the same week, the State Department approved two military sales to the al-Sisi regime valued at $2.5 billion. According to the federal government, this transaction will purportedly “improve the security of a Major Non-NATO Ally that continues to be an important strategic partner of the United States.”

In what may be described as the definition of a slap on the wrist, the $130 million the State Department blocked is only a tenth of the annual $1.3 billion the United States has given to Egypt every year since 1987. In fact, Egypt is one of the largest recipients of U.S. military aid

If the State Department strictly adhered to federal “Leahy Laws,” it would insist that Egypt abandon its despotic ways before Egypt received security assistance. Named after Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, these laws compel the United States to withhold security assistance to countries that have committed gross violations of human rights. The Biden Administration should strictly enforce the Leahy Laws and deny Egypt the American dollars it craves until it becomes a place where human rights are honored and respected. 

Instead, as punishment for their crimes, the ruling class of Egypt will somehow, some way, have to make do with only 90 percent of what they annually expect from the American taxpayers. Adjusting for inflation, this decades-long transfer of wealth from America to Egypt amounts to over $41 billion. 

Unsurprisingly, Egypt uses American treasure to buy American weaponry. Since 2009, the United States has sold Egypt $3.2 billion in fighter aircraft, $1.3 billion in tanks and armored vehicles, $750 million in missiles, $369 million in munitions, $328 million in military technology, and $240 million in naval craft. As the United States prepares to effectuate yet another military sale, perhaps we should review how one of our most reliable customers treats its people.

Human Rights Watch reports “Egypt’s security apparatus has arbitrarily arrested and prosecuted tens of thousands of persons,” and that “torture crimes against detainees in Egypt are systematic, widespread and likely constitute crimes against humanity.”

One such victim of torture is known as Hamza, who was arrested at his home late one night for the crime of participating in a public demonstration. Despite tireless attempts to track him down, his family was unable to obtain any information about his location for over a month. Later, it was revealed that officers used electric shocks on his genitals, head, and tongue. But even that was not enough for al-Sisi’s henchmen, who later suspended Hamza by his arms, which resulted in dislocating both of his shoulders. Hamza was eventually left on a corridor floor for three winter days without blankets. Such torture would be unbearable for any man. But Hamza was not a man. He was a 14-year-old boy at the time of his arrest.

Hamza is not alone, and the stories of other victims appear in Human Rights Watch’s 43-page report detailing Egypt’s systemic torture of children, including a victim as young as 12-years old.

In Egypt, journalism is a dangerous profession. When a 26-year old man died in police custody, a prominent Egyptian journalist, Islam el-Kahly, was arrested for covering the detainee’s death. And he is only one of several well-known journalists to be imprisoned for the crime of keeping his people informed. Photojournalist Mahmoud Abu Zeid was arrested in 2013 for covering the violent break up of a sit-in protest in Cairo. Zeid was released five years later but is still not free. He is required to report to a police station at 6:00 p.m. every night where the officer on duty decides whether Zeid will merely sign in or spend the night behind bars. The Committee to Protect Journalists ranks Egypt the third-worst jailer of members of its profession, behind only China and Myanmar. 

But perhaps no activity is more dangerous than running for Egypt’s presidency. President al-Sisi was re-elected in 2018 with 97 percent of the vote, whose Soviet-style results were made possible after opposition candidates were effectively eliminated. Two candidates, Sami Anan and Ahmed Konsowa, were imprisoned, and a third, Ahmed Shafik, was placed under house arrest. A senior staffer to Anan’s campaign, Hisham Geneina, was brutally attacked by three men, which resulted in serious damage to his left eye and orbital bones. When another candidate, Mohamed Anwar al-Sadat, withdrew from the race he said, “it’s like committing suicide running against someone like this.”

President Biden pledged to put human rights at “the center of our foreign policy.” Torture of children. Arbitrary arrests of dissidents and journalists. Sham elections and the violent crushing of peaceful opposition. If these are not gross violations of human rights, nothing is. 

The United States cannot proudly affirm human rights to be at the center of our foreign policy, while it arms a regime at war with its own people.

That is why I will force the Senate to vote on a resolution that would cancel the latest military sale to Egypt’s criminal masters. Partially taking away some military aid while offering new sales is weakness in the face of repression. Mere slaps on the wrist cannot hide the inescapable fact that the United States has handsomely rewarded Egypt as it degenerated into one of the most autocratic places on the globe. America should in no uncertain terms demonstrate that we will no longer strengthen a strongman.

We must cure ourselves of the delusion that Egypt is somehow two different lands. The real, existing Egypt is a tyranny. My resolution to cancel military sales offers a choice — whether the United States will side with the Egyptian people, or with their oppressors.


FILE PHOTO: Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi attends the opening ceremony of floating bridges and tunnel projects executed under the Suez Canal in Ismailia, Egypt May 5, 2019. REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh/File Photo
Analysis | Africa
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.