Follow us on social

52386946699_f0e66e8b78_o-scaled

Many Biden officials previously supported Yemen War Powers resolution

The White House is lobbying Senators to vote against the measure, but most of the president's top aides backed it in the Trump era.

Reporting | Middle East

UPDATE: 12/14 6 a.m. EST: Sen. Bernie Sanders pulled the Yemen resolution Tuesday night from a vote, stating he would instead enter into negotiations for compromise language with the Biden Administration, which opposed the bill as-is, according to the Intercept.

“I’m not going to ask for a vote tonight,” Sanders said, according to the Intercept. “I look forward to working with the administration who is opposed to this resolution and see if we can come up with something that is strong and effective. If we do not, I will be back."

_____________________________________________________

This morning, the Intercept’s Ryan Grim reported that the Biden administration is urging Senators to vote against the Yemen War Powers resolution that the Senate is expected to vote on later this evening. According to Grim, “The White House is arguing that a vote in favor is unnecessary because, despite the lapse of the ceasefire, significant hostilities have not yet resumed, and the vote will complicate diplomacy.” Grim later reported on Twitter that White House staff would urge the president to veto the bill if it does pass. 

The bill would restrict U.S. involvement in hostilities in Yemen and reassert Congress’s warmaking authority. The bill has the support of members on both sides of the aisle, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), and, reportedly, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) 

But Grim’s reports demonstrate a pronounced shift among Biden officials as key members of the administration, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, CIA Director Avril Haines, national security adviser Jake Sullivan, deputy national security adviser Jon Finer, and Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, signed letters during the Trump years calling for an end to the U.S. role in the war in Yemen. 

The first letter, released in November 2018 — the letter that includes Blinken and Haines — was signed exclusively by former Obama administration officials and acknowledged that the approach in the Obama years “did not succeed in limiting and ultimately ending the war,” and that “rather than learning from that failure, the Trump administration has doubled down on support for the Saudi leadership’s prosecution of the war ...[t]he results have been devastating.” 

The letter concluded “now, we must cease support altogether.”

After Trump vetoed a Yemen War Powers resolution passed by Congress in April 2019, a second letter later that year — signed by Sullivan, Sherman and current Biden officials Susan Rice and Samantha Power — urged members of Congress to use the opportunity presented by the NDAA vote to effectively override the veto. The letter called the war in Yemen “a constitutional matter facing Congress that may be unparalleled in its potential impact on millions of human lives.”

The situation on the ground may have changed since then, but the UN-brokered truce expired in October, and experts say the United States must do what it can to prevent human suffering and a return to all-out war. “If it doesn't pass,” the Quincy Institute’s Annelle Sheline told Politico’s NatSec Daily referring to the current Yemen WPR, “I think the greater danger is that the Saudis could restart airstrikes and/or prevent flights and fuel ships. Most of the civilian casualties at this point are from insufficient food, water and medical care, due to the Saudis destroying Yemen's infrastructure.”

Indeed, twoDemocratic members of the House wrote in The Nation earlier this year that “[a]s a candidate, President Biden pledged to end support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen while many who now serve as senior officials in his administration repeatedly called for shutting down precisely the activities the US is engaged in that enable Saudi Arabia’s brutal offensive.”

Editors’ note: Current Iran Envoy for the Biden administration Rob Malley, who is related to this author, also signed both letters.


President Joe Biden confers with National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Thursday, August 25, 2022, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)
Reporting | Middle East
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.