Follow us on social

Shutterstock_2108197583-scaled

When it comes to foreign policy, Hakeem Jeffries will bring more of the same

Despite his trail-blazing role as the first Black leader of a major party’s caucus, Jeffries’ foreign-policy views don’t veer from the status quo.

Reporting | North America

On Wednesday, House Democrats unanimously elected Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) to serve as their party’s new leader following Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) recent decision to step down from her leadership role.

Jeffries, who served as an impeachment manager for House Democrats in former President Donald Trump’s second Senate trial, is widely expected to follow in Pelosi’s centrist footsteps. Though he has stayed relatively quiet about his policy views during his decade in Congress, his election will likely draw blowback from progressive activists given his role in founding Team Blue PAC, an election fund aimed at blocking progressive primary challenges of centrist Democrats.

Jeffries has never given much attention to foreign policy, but available evidence suggests that his views line up closely with those of other establishment Democrats.

When it comes to Ukraine, the lawmaker has called on President Joe Biden to emphasize that “this is really a battle between democracy and autocracy, between freedom and repressive government.”

“An attack on any democracy is an attack on every democracy,” he tweeted shortly after Russia’s invasion in February.

He has even expressed sympathy for the idea of establishing a NATO-enforced no-fly zone in Ukraine, arguing in March that such a move wasn’t “off the table” despite the fact that it would likely involve direct combat between U.S. and Russian forces.

Jeffries has rarely weighed in on issues related to defense spending. However, it is worth noting that he voted in favor of a $740 billion defense bill in 2020, a proposal that received a “no” vote from all nine other members of New York City’s congressional delegation.

Despite his generally hawkish views, Jeffries has sided with progressives and anti-war advocates on a few issues, including a vote to require congressional authorization for the U.S. military mission in Syria. As Erik Sperling of Just Foreign Policy noted on Twitter, Jeffries also signed onto a congressional letter last year in which progressive lawmakers called for a review of the humanitarian impact of American sanctions.

As for the war in Yemen, the Brooklyn-based lawmaker voted in favor of the 2019 War Powers Resolution that would have forced the United States to withdraw its support for Saudi Arabia’s devastating campaign against the Houthi-led insurgency. (Trump quickly vetoed the measure, which never earned enough support in Congress to overturn the block.)

Notably, Jeffries supported the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, a measure that would criminalize efforts to boycott Israeli goods in protest of Tel Aviv’s treatment of Palestinians, which critics say violates the First Amendment. In his most recent election, he received more than $270,000 in donations from hawkish pro-Israel groups, including AIPAC.

He has also rankled progressives with his steadfast support for Israeli military operations. When Tel Aviv launched an attack on Gaza in 2014, Jeffries applauded the move, likening Israel’s situation to living in a dangerous city.

“But when you live in a tough neighborhood Israel should not be made to apologize for its strength,” he wrote in a statement. “You know why? Because the only thing that neighbors respect in a tough neighborhood is strength.”

Despite his emphatic support for Israel, Jeffries broke with Tel Aviv in 2015 by supporting the Iran nuclear deal, arguing that the agreement is the “most preferable vehicle to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.”

Notably, the centrist congressman has said little about the brewing cold war between the United States and China. He did, however, support the CHIPS Act, which will provide over $50 billion in funding aimed at developing the U.S. semiconductor industry in an effort to compete with Chinese manufacturers.

Updated with additional details at 11:05 a.m. on December 1.


Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). (Shutterstock/ Lev Radin)
Reporting | North America
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

keep readingShow less
SPD Germany Ukraine
Top Photo: Lars Klingbeil (l-r, SPD), Federal Minister of Finance, Vice-Chancellor and SPD Federal Chairman, and Bärbel Bas (SPD), Federal Minister of Labor and Social Affairs and SPD Party Chairwoman, bid farewell to the members of the previous Federal Cabinet Olaf Scholz (SPD), former Federal Chancellor, Nancy Faeser, Saskia Esken, SPD Federal Chairwoman, Karl Lauterbach, Svenja Schulze and Hubertus Heil at the SPD Federal Party Conference. At the party conference, the SPD intends to elect a new executive committee and initiate a program process. Kay Nietfeld/dpa via Reuters Connect

Does Germany’s ruling coalition have a peace problem?

Europe

Surfacing a long-dormant intra-party conflict, the Friedenskreise (peace circles) within the Social Democratic Party of Germany has published a “Manifesto on Securing Peace in Europe” in a stark challenge to the rearmament line taken by the SPD leaders governing in coalition with the conservative CDU-CSU under Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Although the Manifesto clearly does not have broad support in the SPD, the party’s leader, Deputy Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil, won only 64% support from the June 28-29 party conference for his performance so far, a much weaker endorsement than anticipated. The views of the party’s peace camp may be part of the explanation.

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.