On Thursday night, President Joe Biden — acting without congressional approval — ordered airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen, an escalation in the regional spillover from Israel’s war in Gaza that now directly involves US military personnel.
Biden chose to escalate the conflict and bomb Yemen in response to Houthi fighters' Red Sea attacks. His unconditional support and steady flow of weapons to Israel appears to be increasing the likelihood of a regional war. Instead of using the U.S.’s considerable leverage over Israel to push for a ceasefire, Biden is enabling a brutal war that has killed more than 23,000 Palestinians, and ties his administration to Israel’s decisions as it inches toward an all out war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Biden should be honest with Americans: the longer Israel's siege of Gaza persists, the greater the chances of a regional conflagration that will put American lives in danger.
Eli Clifton is a senior advisor at the Quincy Institute and Investigative Journalist at Large at Responsible Statecraft. He reports on money in politics and U.S. foreign policy.
Khody Akhavi is Senior Video Producer at the Quincy Institute. Previously he was Head of Video for Al-Monitor and covered the White House for Al Jazeera English, as well as produced films for the network’s flagship investigative unit.
The recent Trump, Vance, and Zelensky office blow-up was ugly. And yet, the moment revealed hard truths about the war in Ukraine: namely, the need to end it.
For years, the Biden administration repeatedly pushed for military aid to Ukraine to continue the fighting. But its efforts have ultimately kept peace out of reach.
Indeed, the Trump administration’s continued push for negotiations comes as the conflict, a functional stalemate between Russia and Ukraine, has resulted in a quarter-million deaths, left another 800,000 wounded, and caused $1 trillion in economic damages. And the Ukrainian government, meanwhile, is running out of troops who can fight.
“Battle lines haven't meaningfully moved since 2022, and declining support in the U.S. for continued war funding only adds to the greater sense of urgency this war needs to end for the sake of Ukraine, for its post-war security, for its prosperity, for its very future,” says Senior Video Producer, Khody Akhavi, in a new video produced for the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
“A negotiated settlement or compromise actually affords Ukraine the best opportunity to actually preserve its independence, a viable path towards reconstruction and eventual membership to the EU. That might not be the sort of end that Ukrainians had sought to this war, but it's very clear where the other path leads.”
Learn more by watching Khody Akhavi’s latest video:
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian arrive for a ceremony to sign an agreement of comprehensive strategic partnership between the two countries, at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia January 17, 2025. Sputnik/Vyacheslav Prokofyev/Pool via REUTER
Russia is reportedly interested in assisting U.S. efforts to negotiate a new and broader nuclear deal with Iran.
The potential for Washington-Moscow cooperation on Iran’s nuclear program comes as the Middle East continues to experience its most tumultuous days in recent memory, facing a litany of risks that could ignite into broader conflict at any moment. While some view Iran’s so-called Axis of Resistance as on the back foot, justifying an aggressive posture to “reshape the Middle East,” the reality is that any added aggression risks disaster in a region where Washington should be hyper-focused on shrinking its footprint.
The reporting on potential Russian mediation comes one month after President Donald Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-2), declaring a return of “maximum pressure” against Iran. NSPM-2 makes clear its reasoning for maximum pressure: “Iran’s behavior threatens the national interest of the United States. It is therefore in the national interest to impose maximum pressure on the Iranian regime to end its nuclear threat, curtail its ballistic missile program, and stop its support for terrorist groups.”
Trump has left the option of military strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites on the table should non-military efforts fail to curtail Tehran.
This rationalization of interests could not be further from the truth when considering the use of military force versus diplomatic mechanisms to rein in Iran’s nuclear program. The United States has very narrowly defined interests in the Middle East, regardless of what hawkish pundits would have the American public believe. Indeed, the opposite of NSPM-2 is true of U.S. regional policy priorities: avoiding a war with Iran is a core U.S. interest.
Policymakers should always try to apply a restrained approach to military force that considers the law and vital national interests. In this regard, there is not a legal basis for attacking Iran. More importantly, Iran does not present an existential threat to the United States in any current or medium-term scenario. Rather, Tehran presents an immediate threat to the interest of certain regional partners — namely Israel — and U.S. forces left exposed in forward positions across the Middle East.
Yet even when observing regional geopolitical dynamics, the Islamic Republic is not an existential threat to Israel, which is the most powerful Middle Eastern country militarily. This says nothing of the natural regional rebalancing that has occurred over time to check Iranian actions, including but not limited to the Abraham Accords, a growing interstate missile defense network, and the China-sponsored renormalization agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Beyond interests, any maximum pressure strategy against Iran that includes striking its nuclear and military facilities would be ineffective and counterproductive. The U.S. intelligence community estimates that an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites would achieve a modest impact at best, setting back Tehran’s nuclear program by only “weeks or months” without eliminating its ability to reconstitute.
The Islamic Republic cannot be fully isolated from the world in any way that would block efforts to resist maximum pressure or rebuild its nuclear program, as witnessed by its increasingly close, albeit transactional, relations with Russia, China, and many of its neighbors. Indeed, on the nuclear file, it has the domestic knowledge base to resume nuclear activities after any attack.
Worse, a massive strike on Iranian nuclear and military sites will effectively kill any future attempts at diplomacy between the West and Tehran. The Islamic Republic’s leadership is already skeptical of the West and bases much of its limited legitimacy on anti-American and anti-imperial sentiment. Hawkish decisions against the country empower Iranian hardliners and vice versa, leaving limited options for permanently curtailing the Iranian nuclear program outside of violent regime change while inducing a race to the bottom that fuels hardline views and policies.
Yet any future war with Iran will be disastrous for the Middle East and globally — including the United States. It also harms an additional core but narrow interest: sustaining regional stability for the free flow of energy products in support of global energy security. Washington and the broader international community cannot afford a brutal war with one of the region’s most powerful countries, let alone one with proxies willing to expand the conflict region-wide.
While Iran will likely lose any war with the United States, the post-conflict scenario is equally undesirable. Iran is a large and diverse country with multiple ethnicities that would fight for statelets from the former nation, inducing a 2006 Iraq-style civil conflict with disastrous results.
There are better ways to approach the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as news of potential U.S.-Russia cooperation on the issue highlight. While building a coalition of world leaders interested in curtailing Iran’s nuclear program, U.S. officials would be wise to voice opposition publicly and privately to unhelpful policies that stifle a diplomatic approach. That effort should include tempering Israel’s ambitions to change the security environment through short-sighted, military-first strategies.
Such considerations are critical for advancing real U.S. interests, which preclude yet another Middle East war.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: USA TODAY NETWORK via Reuters Connect
In yet another example of Donald Trump announcing new policy via social media, the president has now pledged to crack down on “illegal protests” at universities, warning that “agitators” will be headed to jail or targeted for deportation.
Most likely, Trump’s Truth Social post is a reference to last year’s uprising of student encampments and protests at universities across the country in opposition to U.S. weapons and political support for Israel’s onslaught of Gaza that the International Court of Justice and every major human rights organization has concluded plausibly amounts to genocide. On the campaign trail, Trump already pledged to crush pro-Palestinian protests if they ramp up again, including deporting foreign national students who participate.
Many may see this and not be very alarmed. After all, peaceful protest isn’t illegal. But what many do not realize is that counterterrorism law gives enormously wide-ranging discretionary authority to the president, to law enforcement, and to immigration officials that could be used to squelch free speech and dissent.
For example: providing material support for terrorism is a federal crime. This may seem fair enough on its face. But the breathtaking scope of this provision becomes more clear once we see how the terms are defined. “Material support” includes the provision of “service,” “expert advice or assistance,” “communications equipment,” or “personnel” (including yourself). And the Supreme Court has confirmed that the support does not actually have to go toward any particular violent act that might be considered terrorism, only to a group that is designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the U.S. government, even if that support is otherwise lawful.
Hamas is designated as an FTO and those opposing U.S. and Israeli policy are often accused of supporting Hamas. Could peaceful pro-Palestine protesters be charged with materially supporting terrorism? This is exactly what the Anti-Defamation League was pushing for in the last wave of student protests when it urged universities to shut down and investigate Students for Justice in Palestine chapters for their role in organizing the activism. It is also what Rep. James Comer suggested in a letter he sent to Americans Muslims for Palestine in his capacity as the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, demanding documents and information.
Allegations of “material support for terrorism” have long been launched against peaceful pro-Palestine activists by those who disagree with them ideologically, including suggestions that such activism provides “services” to Hamas in the form of public relations or propaganda. The Supreme Court has been clear that independent advocacy remains protected by the First Amendment, but aggressive prosecutors could allege that activism is illegally “directed by” or “coordinated with” a designated terrorist organization by leaning on things like similar uses of language from both protestors and Hamas (there are already numerous civil lawsuits making this exact case.)
What about Trump’s pledge to deport foreign students who engage in protest? Immigration law contains enormously wide-ranging counterterrorism measures that deny foreign nationals entry or permit their deportation if officials determine that they “persuade[d] others to support a terrorist organization,” or “endorse[d] or espouse[d]” or “persuade[d] others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity.” These are the same stringent provisions that prevented Nelson Mandela from easily traveling to the United States, even once he became the leader of South Africa, until Congress passed a law in 2008 rectifying the embarrassing situation.
Many Members of Congress and state attorneys general were already urging the Biden administration to ramp up deportations of foreign student protestors last year using these provisions of the law. Now that the Trump administration has taken over immigration enforcement, we can easily imagine these “anti-terrorism” laws being relied upon to execute a sweeping revocation of student visas and mass deportations - all for peacefully protesting US and Israeli policies in Gaza.
It is almost a cliche by now that we are supposed to take bombastic statements from Trump “seriously, but not literally.” But, because of the massive power given to him by counterterrorism laws, we may actually want to take this one literally.
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.