On the eve of a new round of negotiations between the world’s powers and Iran to restore the 2015 nuclear deal, the vast majority of voters believe that the United States should use diplomacy — and not military force — to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, according to a recent poll from Data For Progress.
In a survey of 1,330 likely voters, 78 percent of respondents said Washington must use its best diplomatic tools to “put an immediate end to Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” while only 12 percent agreed with the statement that the United States “must go to war with Iran in order to slow down its nuclear weapons development.” (It should be noted that despite the poll’s wording, the U.S. intelligence community and the International Atomic Energy Agency have not at this time made an assessment that Iran is embarking on a nuclear weapons program.)
The poll shows a range of potentially strong messages for those who advocate a return to the Iran nuclear deal. It also indicates that, even after two years of President Joe Biden dragging his feet on a return to the accord, Americans have little appetite for alternative approaches to resolving the issue.
In a second framing of the question, 74 percent of likely voters polled said they supported a deal that would use international monitoring to stop Iran’s nuclear program from progressing. On the other side, eight percent favored military action that would set the program back “by years,” and five percent supported the current path, even if it would allow Iran to develop a weapon in the next year.
Notably, the survey showed that a slim majority (56 percent) of Republicans would support a “new agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program,” even if that accord was based on the original deal.
If Iran does manage to develop a nuclear weapon, respondents said overwhelmingly that they would primarily blame either Biden or former President Donald Trump. Responses fell along partisan lines, with 62 percent of Democrats blaming Trump and 61 percent of Republicans putting the responsibility on Biden’s shoulders.
Connor Echols is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft. He was previously the managing editor of the NonZero Newsletter.
FILE PHOTO: Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) hold a news conference on the death of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi and the humanitarian crisis in Yemen on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., December 12, 2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File Photo
Top image credit: A U.S. Army soldier (2R) trains Nigerian Army soldiers at a military compound in Jaji, Nigeria, February 14, 2018. To match Special Report NIGERIA-MILITARY/INTERNATIONAL Capt. James Sheehan/U.S. Army/Handout via REUTERS
The report, which has previously affected the country’s eligibility for security assistance, confirmed what civil society groups have been saying for years: that the security forces of Nigeria, Washington’s most significant ally in Sub-Saharan Africa, habitually operate with impunity and without due regard for human rights protection — a key condition for receiving U.S. security cooperation.
For example, the report spotlighted the following human rights abuses as ongoing concerns: “arbitrary and unlawful killings; disappearances; or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest or detention; serious abuses in a conflict.”
It also claimed that “military operations against ISIS-WA, Boko Haram, and criminal organization targets” often resulted in civilian deaths. Other findings include the use of “excessive force,” “sexual violence and other forms of abuse” by the military in the pursuit of jihadists, as well as inappropriate detention for prolonged periods and often in poor conditions of women and children removed from or allegedly associated with jihadists reportedly for “security screening and perceived intelligence value.”
Interestingly, the new arms sale is meant for exactly the same theater of operations where the above alleged abuses have reportedly occurred. There, in the treacherous terrain of the country’s northeast, Nigeria’s army has been fighting for more than a decade in a bloody stand-off with jihadists. The arms are also meant for use in and around the Gulf of Guinea where piracy and illegal trafficking of arms, humans and narcotics pose new challenges.
What this means therefore is that if approved, U.S.-origin weapons comprising an assortment of munitions, precision bombs, rockets and related equipment would arm units of Nigeria’s security forces whose egregious abuses bordering on war crimes are confirmed not just by civil societies but by the U.S. State Department.
Since the 1950s, the U.S. has been the world’s leading arms-exporting nation accounting between 2019 and 2023 for 42 percent of all global arms exports. Several laws exist ostensibly to regulate and ensure that U.S. security assistance is provided to allies without undermining America’s core values. For example, Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act expressly forbids the United States from providing security assistance to any country whose government engages in a “consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” Investigations by human rights groups and the media, including Reuters and Premium Times, have uncovered a consistent pattern of abuse by security forces that suggests that Nigeria has met this threshold.
However, not once have any of the relevant legal provisions conditioning arms sales on respect for human rights and civilian harm concerns been enforced. Indeed, successive U.S. administrations since the 1970s, Democrats and Republicans alike, have routinely ignored them while there is as yet no record of Congress successfully stopping an arms sale on this account — although it has delayed some. In 2022, during the Biden administration, Congress blocked a planned shipment of 12 AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters to Nigeria over human rights concern, but this was soon reversed.
This divergence between what the U.S. law says and what the government actually does reflects a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Washington’s foreign policy between its human rights advocacy and the pursuit of global military primacy, in part through arms sales. It is a contradiction the world has seen play out in the bloody conflict in the Middle East where, despite carrying out a genocide in Gaza, Israelremains a top recipient of U.S. security assistance.
As the Center for Civilian in Conflict (CIVIC) noted in a recent report, Washington often “elevates other competing priorities, including addressing threats from non-state actors and strategic competition by other key powers, over concerns for civilian protection and human rights even where significant fears exist about potential misuse of U.S. security assistance.”
The contradiction has grown even more recently as America’s global hegemony faces growing challenges in an increasingly multipolar world. Therefore, besides its role in counterterrorism operations against jihadists in the Sahel, Nigeria’s potential as a likely constraint on the growing influence of China and, more recently, Russia and Turkey in Sub-Saharan Africa makes it an ally too dear to lose.
But while all U.S. administrations have ultimately prioritized America’s global military primacy over any other concerns, Trump has gone much further than most by cutting staffing and shuttering programs in the Pentagon that previously helped put human rights and civilian harms mitigation at the heart of U.S. security assistance. The net result is that today, Washington is less able to guarantee the appropriate use of U.S.-origin weapons, thus increasing the risk of abuse.
The situation is further complicated by the interest of America’s “Military Industrial Complex” to maintain profitability by selling to U.S. partners older weapons systems for which the Pentagon no longer has any use. Consequently, U.S. security assistance to Nigeria has grown exponentially over the past two decades. It includes $1.5 billion in government-to-government Foreign Military Sales and over $200 million in direct commercial sales by U.S. companies. This is in addition to a program of periodic trainings and joint military drills in which different units of Nigeria’s military have participated.
These efforts, however, have so far failed to turn the tide on the insecurity that increasingly plagues the country. Several factors are responsible, chief of which include corruption, accountability challenges, and lack of motivation among the rank and file. “As quickly as the U.S. sends money and arms, the resources are often diverted from their intended destination,” Brad Brandon, founder and CEO of Across Nigeria, observes.
Besides, acquiring advanced weaponry is one thing; the ability to use it in an effective and responsible manner is another. Despite racking up significant air strike capabilities over the years thanks mostly to U.S. security assistance, the Nigerian military continues to suffer a substantial deficit in its Air-to-Ground Integration; that is, air assets do not often have reliable communication with ground forces when targeting their bombs.
This has led to a series of catastrophic “air strike mistakes” starting with the mistaken bombing, in which the U.S. reportedly played an indirect secret role, of a displaced persons camp in Rann in Borno state in 2017 which killed more than 236 civilians. According to a Reuters analysis of violent incidents documented by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), more than 2,600 people had been killed over a period of five years in 248 air strikes by the Nigerian Air Force.
On April 10 last year, an air strike by Nigeria’s air force on a village in Zamfara state meant to eliminate bandits resulted in the killing of 33 people. Despite the acquisition, four years ago, of at least 12 Super Tucano light attack aircraft boasting enhanced air-to-ground communications capabilities, as well as precision-guided weapons-delivery systems, the carnage has continued with the most recent mishap occurring in January.
So, while Nigeria’s security sector is hopeful that the new arms package could aid the country’s air force carry out more precise strikes and thereby reduce civilian casualties, recent experience shows that this is not necessarily assured. This is because the new weaponry would be operating in institutional settings that are not only ill-suited to reducing civilian harm, but also resistant to accountability.
Washington thus would be taking a big risk if the sale goes through without extracting sufficient guarantees for the responsible use of the weaponry alongside accountability measures to protect civilians. This should be combined with restoring Pentagon programs dedicated to civilian harm mitigation to send a clear message to recipient nations where Washington stands on this crucial issue.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Oracle PR/Hartmann Studios/Creative Commons
The $14 billion deal to transfer TikTok’s ownership away from ByteDance, a company with roots in China, may be the culmination of the Biden and Trump administration’s efforts to force divestment of Chinese-linked ownership in the social media behemoth. Fears over foreign influence at TikTok undergirded the campaign but an executive at one of the new investors has expressed a commitment to influencing U.S. public opinion in favor of Israel.
In a previously unreported email released as part of a hack of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s email account, Oracle CEO Safra Catz explicitly expressed a commitment to influencing U.S. public opinion in favor of Israel. Catz, writing in February 16, 2015, urged Barak to sign on as a consulting producer for a reality TV show about “Women of the IDF” with the goal of “human[izing] the IDF in the eyes of the American public.” (The show, created by Sarit Catz, Safra’s sister, ultimately premiered in 2024 without Ehud Barak as a consulting producer.)
Catz, after burnishing his sister’s pro-Israel bonafides as a “very prominent pro-Israel activist and AIPAC national leader,” shared her own views on how Americans should be conditioned to support Israel, writing:
"We have all been horrified by the growth of the BDS movement in college campuses and have concluded that we have to fight this battle before the kids even get to college. We believe that we have to embed the love and respect for Israel in the American culture. That means getting the message to the American people in a way they can consume it."
“As Executive Vice Chair of the Oracle Board of Directors, Safra will be nowhere near the algorithm of TikTok,” sources familiar with the matter told Responsible Statecraft. The sources “could not confirm the authenticity of the email.”
Catz’s shift from CEO, a job she held for over 10 years, to executive vice chair of the board only occurred on September 22, meaning it’s likely she oversaw much of the negotiations involving the TikTok purchase. She was also serving as head of Oracle when she expressed her view that “we have to embed the love and respect for Israel in the American culture.”
The deal — and the presence of Catz, who signaled a strong interest in advancing a foreign country’s agenda in the United States — stands out even more in light of remarks made last week in New York by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Speaking to a group of social media influencers, Netanyahu said:
"The most important purchase going on right now is [...] TikTok. Number one. And I hope it goes through because it can be consequential. And the other one? X. We have to talk to Elon. He's not an enemy, he's a friend. We should talk to him. Now, if we can get those two things, we get a lot. [...] We have to fight the fight, to give direction to the Jewish people and give direction to our non-Jewish friends."
Oracle’s ties to Israel extend to its founder and chief technology officer, Larry Ellison. Ellison, the world’s second wealthiest person, gave over $26 million to Friends of the Israel Defense Forces. He told Israel’s Channel 10 in 2014, “We love our country of Israel and we’ll do everything we can to support the country of Israel.”
Catz and Ellison are joined by top Republican donor Jeff Yass whose philanthropy includes $16 million sent to anti-Muslim and pro-Israel groups between 2011 and 2019, many of which have advocated for a U.S. war with Iran. One of Yass’s largest philanthropic efforts in the foreign policy space was $7.9 million in contributions to Jerusalem Online University between 2014 and 2019 by a foundation at which he had served as one of three directors.
A 2011 investigation of Jerusalem Online University by The Forward found:
"On its website and its promotional materials, Jerusalem Online U hardly portrays itself as a center for neutral academic inquiry. In fact, it boasts an explicitly pro-Israel mission that seems distinctly at odds with academic principles. In one advertisement for its services, the Jerusalem Online U site’s blog features a video of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu telling Congress last May that ‘Israel is what is right’ about the Middle East. The words ‘Be a Part of What’s Right’ appear on screen as he speaks."
Yass, like Ellison, also contributed to Friends of the Israel Defense Forces.
Fears of foreign influence by TikTok’s China-linked investors have largely driven the impending sale of the social media platform that serves as a news source for a fifth of U.S. adults and 43% of adults under 30, according to Pew Research Center polling released last week. But for the participants in the sale, particularly Ellison and Catz, advancing Israel’s interests have been a driving motivation in both of their philanthropies, raising serious questions about whether the sale is to prevent foreign influence on U.S. social media platforms or, as Netanyahu said, “the most important purchase going on right now” in amplifying Israel’s messaging and influence over young Americans.
Oracle did not respond to a request for comment.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Vladimir Putin (Office of the Executive of the Federation of Russia) and Donald Trump (Michael C. Dougherty, U.S. Southern Command Public Affairs)
When asked on Sunday if reports that President Donald Trump was considering providing Ukraine with Tomahawk cruise missiles were true, Vice President J.D. Vance left the door open.
The President was selling, not gifting, weapons to Ukraine, Vance clarified, and would make the final decision about what capabilities Ukraine might receive.
If the Trump administration is hoping that toying with this proposal to furnish Ukraine with more advanced, longer-range missiles will give it leverage over Russian President Vladimir Putin, it is mistaken. Ukraine does not have the ability to launch Tomahawk missiles, and U.S. stocks of these weapons and their delivery systems are far too few and far too valuable for the Pentagon to agree to part with them.
Such rhetorical and unrealistic military threats are counterproductive, telegraph desperation, and create unnecessary escalation risks.
This is not the first time that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has asked for Tomahawk missiles. He made a similar request of the Biden administration earlier in the war but was rebuffed. The reasons for his continued interest are obvious. With a range of 2,500 kilometers—almost ten times that of the U.S. ATACMS—Tomahawk missiles could hold at risk strategic military and critical infrastructure targets across Russia far from Ukraine’s borders, including in Moscow and beyond.
That President Trump would now consider this request seriously is surprising. After all, his administration reimposed limits on Ukraine’s use of U.S.-provided long-range missiles months ago, restricting them to targets inside Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine. Providing Ukraine with new cruise missiles that can reach even farther into Russian territory would be at odds with this position and with Trump’s waning interest in offering Ukraine additional military assistance of any kind.
To be sure, President Trump often changes his mind. But even if Russia’s continued escalation in Ukraine and incursions into NATO airspace in recent weeks have altered Trump’s attitude, there is little chance that the United States can or would provide Kyiv with Tomahawk missiles. In fact, rather than exerting pressure on the Russian president, talk of providing Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles is fanciful and detached from military realities, and Putin clearly knows this.
Tomahawk missiles can be fired in three ways, from a guided missile destroyer; from Ohio, Virginia, and Los-Angeles class submarines; and using the new ground-based Typhon system, which was developed by the U.S. Army. Ukraine does not have any of these capabilities and has next zero chance of procuring them in the near or medium term.
For starters, Ukraine’s navy is small and lacks surface combatants, attack submarines, and the personnel to operate either. With U.S. ship and submarine-building under strain, it is unlikely Washington would consider selling these platforms to Ukraine.
Ukraine might have the personnel needed to operate the new ground-based Typhon system, but it is equally unlikely that the Pentagon would agree to sell this new hardware to Ukraine. The United States only has two working Typhon batteries, with a third in progress. Two of these systems are intended for use in Asia and one is earmarked for possible deployment to Germany. The United States has not agreed to sell the advanced system to any ally or partner — in part due to scarcity and in part due to the sensitivity of the technology — and it is hard to fathom that Ukraine will be the first.
If the United States did offer to sell Ukraine a Typhon system, it would not survive long on the country’s battlefield. The Typhon battery is enormous and hard to move. It requires a C-17 for transport over long-distances, and though it is road mobile, its size makes it quite easy to spot by satellite or even surveillance drone. In other words, it would make an appealing and vulnerable target for Russian airstrikes.
Without a means to launch the missiles, giving or selling Tomahawks to Ukraine would be futile. But there are other reasons to doubt that the United States would consider doing so. First, the missiles themselves are scarce and take two years to produce. With a total U.S. stockpile estimated under 4,000 missiles and after wasting several hundred in a pointless campaign against the Houthis in the Red Sea, the Pentagon will be leery of parting with the valuable munition, especially in the quantities needed for Ukraine to achieve strategic effects.
This is especially true given the crucial role the missile will play in any Pacific campaign, and the fact that fewer than 200 are produced most years.
Second, the United States has sold the missile so far only to close allies: Australia, Britain, Denmark, and Japan. Not even Israel has been permitted to purchase Tomahawk missiles to this point. It seems unlikely that the United States would be willing to share the weapon and its sensitive technology with the Ukrainians, especially with the risk that the missile or its remnants might fall into Russian hands.
Finally, there is the question of escalation, which Trump and his national security team has continued to attend to closely. Providing Ukraine a capability that can strike deep inside Russia creates a tremendous risk, especially since use of these missiles would require U.S. intelligence and targeting assistance. If Moscow believes that there is real threat to regime targets or to pieces of its nuclear infrastructure, the potential for nuclear escalation could become intolerably high. Even as he has become more frustrated with Putin, Trump has indicated zero interest in this type of outcome or any U.S. action that might drive Putin further from the negotiating table.
As the war drags on, it is understandable that Trump and his national security team are looking for new ways to coerce Putin into ending his battlefield campaign. To work, however, new threats must be credible, both politically and militarily. The proposal to send Ukraine Tomahawks is neither, and is more likely to evoke more laughter in the Kremlin than fear.
In the end, the best path to ending the war in Ukraine continues to be doubling down on diplomacy, even if the bargaining process is slow, frustrating, and doesn’t yield immediate results.
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.