President Biden landed in Israel Wednesday and immediately held a meeting for press with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu where he seemed to endorse the Israeli's version of who caused the hospital explosion in Gaza on Tuesday.
"Based on what I’ve seen, it appears as though it was done by the other team, not you,” Biden told Netanyahu as they sat opposite each other. “But there’s a lot of people out there not sure.”
Israel has blamed Islamic Jihad Palestinian militants for they say was an errant bomb. Palestinian officials say Israel was responsible. Neither claim has been independently verified, and according to Peter Baker of the New York Times, U.S. officials told reporters on the plane to Israel that they were still gathering information, so it is not clear what Biden was looking at to make his assessment.
According to Gaza health authorities, the blast has so far killed 500 people, including staff, patients, and civilians who had taken refuge there after evacuation orders from Israel.
During this extraordinarily fraught visit, Biden will first assure Netanyahu of his support in the wake of the Hamas attacks and kidnappings last week, but he has pledged to raise humanitarian concerns with the prime minister, too, as Israel continues to pound the Gaza strip with missiles and still appears poised for a ground invasion. A humanitarian corridor to get basic supplies like water, food, and fuel to Palestinians in Gaza has yet to be opened. Jordan’s King Abdullah II called off meetings that were to be held with Biden, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi , and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, after the hospital explosion yesterday.
UPDATE: At a later meeting with first responders and victim's families in Israel, Biden was asked why he felt "the other team" was responsible for the hospital strike:
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is the Editorial Director of Responsible Statecraft.
photo : U.S. President Joe Biden attends a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as he visits Israel amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Tel Aviv, Israel, October 18, 2023. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Top image credit: Elon Musk and U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth shake hands at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 21, 2025 in this screengrab obtained from a video. REUTERS/Idrees Ali
Last week, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth directed the termination of over $580 million in Pentagon contracts, grants, and programs. They amount to less than 0.07% of the Pentagon budget.
The elimination of this spending aligns with the administration’s effort to reshuffle the budget, not to promote a wholesale reduction in military spending.
Secretary Hegseth made this clear in February, when he ordered his staff to draw up plans to excise about $50 billion from the Pentagon budget annually for at least five years — only to “offset” greater spending in 17 priority areas. These include further militarization of the border, needless expansion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and ill-conceived plans to develop a “Golden Dome” missile defense system for the United States.
Accordingly, Hegseth announced in a video last week that the eliminated spending did not align with the administration’s priorities — “in other words, they are not a good use of taxpayer dollars.” The secretary proceeded to outline terminated contracts, grants, and programs — lamenting one program for 780% cost growth. According to Hegseth, “we’re not doing that anymore.”
Hegseth is right to baulk at a program egregiously over budget and behind schedule. Cost growth and delivery delays are longstanding and pervasive issues at the Department of Defense. However, to cut wasteful spending fast — the secretary’s stated intention — he must start with big ticket items in the Pentagon budget. These are service contracts and major weapon programs, which are particularly susceptible to cost overruns and delays.
Instead, Secretary Hegseth has focused his attention on firing civilian employees and nibbling at the edges of the Pentagon budget to shore up more funding for the president’s misguided priorities.
The result is a performative appeal to the American people, who suffer the social and economic consequences of a runaway Pentagon budget — further militarization of U.S. foreign policy and forgone investment on civilian infrastructure. Taxpayers don’t need Secretary Hegseth to explain why he’s eliminating less than a hundredth of a percentage point in Pentagon spending to simply redirect it elsewhere. They need big, bold action that prioritizes their security needs and wallets over the financial interests of military contractors. They need deep cuts to the Pentagon budget, regardless of parochial interests.
As a second-term president, Trump is well-positioned to advance deep reductions in military spending. He and Secretary Hegseth also have the necessary tools to reduce the Pentagon budget. My colleagues and I outlined around $60 billion in cuts in January. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) likewise detailed how to cut hundreds of billions from the Pentagon budget over the next 12 years. These recommendations are informed by years of research on the drivers of Pentagon waste: dangerous and unrealistic defense strategy, outsize corporate influence on the policymaking process, and downright bad deal-making with military contractors.
Yet the administration appears deferential to billionaire Elon Musk, the head of the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). Indeed, last week’s re-shuffling of the Pentagon budget came at the direction of DOGE, which made no haste getting to the Pentagon even though military spending accounts for over half of the annual discretionary budget. As many have pointed out, Musk’s companies Space X and Starlink received billions in government contracts in fiscal year 2024. This is a clear conflict of interest.
Further, DOGE’s approach to the Pentagon is unlikely to produce significant savings long-term. Those require a pivot away from the U.S. grand strategy of global military dominance and the hubris that comes with it. President Trump seems to have some understanding that the Pentagon budget is overkill. Only a month ago he expressed interest in arms control agreements with China and Russia, with the goal of all three countries ultimately cutting their military budgets in half.
But then a week later, Secretary Hegseth exempted nuclear modernization efforts from any re-shuffling of funds within the Pentagon budget.
Promoting a topline reduction in Pentagon spending requires the administration to defy military contractors and lawmakers on the Hill — the ICBM lobby, the Joint Strike Fighter Congressional Caucus, and others. It means rejecting calls for Pentagon budget increases through the budget reconciliation process. Further, it necessitates that the administration cancel boondoggles like the F-35 fighter jet and the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile in the president’s budget request to Congress for fiscal year 2026. These actions require serious gumption. The administration would have to actually walk the walk to reduce topline Pentagon spending.
It is never too late to do the right thing, but right now the administration is talking a big game.
Editor's note: This story originally reported that Hegseth announced a 0.001% Pentagon budget cut. The actual figure is 0.07% and the story has been updated accordingly.
keep readingShow less
Top Photo: Zhytomyr, Zhytomyr Oblast, Ukraine - March 8 2022: On March 8, 2022, a Russian Su-34 bomber dropped two 250 kg bombs on a civilian house in Zhitomir, Ukraine (Shutterstock/Volodymyr Vorobiov)
Bombardments making Ukraine, Gaza toxic for generations
A new report finds dangerously high levels of uranium and lead contamination in Fallujah, Iraq, and other places that experience massive military bombardments in wartime, resulting in birth defects and long-term health risks among the people who live there
The report — from the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs — presages the dangers of prolonged conflict in places like Ukraine and Gaza, both of which have experienced sustained bombing campaigns for 3 years and 18 months, respectively. Indeed, precautions can be taken to reduce dangerous exposure to those who return to their homes after conflict ends, but the authors also point out that “the most effective way to limit heavy metal toxicity from war is by not bombing cities” at all.
Researchers found that 29% of Iraqis living in Fallujah have uranium in their bones, and 100% have lead contamination. Uranium is toxic to humans, and lead can be at high levels. The levels found at Fallujah were 600% higher than the national average in the United States.
These findings add to years of research done on the after-effects of America’s campaigns in Fallujah. In central Iraq, Fallujah was the scene of two destructive campaigns during the Iraq War. Several insurgent groups were operating in Fallujah in 2003, and in 2004, four American contractors were killed, with their bodies put on display. The United States launched the First Battle of Fallujah shortly after in an attempt to capture the perpetrators.
The first battle lasted only around a month, and the Second Battle of Fallujah broke out in November as the U.S. wanted to retake the city from insurgents. By November, 2,000 American and 600 Iraqi troops were participating in the assault, supported by air and artillery strikes. Most of the civilians were warned and subsequently evacuated, but tens of thousands remained during the fighting, which lasted until late December.
By the end of 2004, 60% of the city’s buildings were destroyed, 50-70% of the population had fled, and an estimated 800 civilians were killed. The after-effects were astounding, with infant mortality rates spiking to 13% from 2009-2010 (as opposed to around 2% in Egypt, for example). Birth defects were so widespread that some doctors warned parents to hold off on having children.
Heavy metal contaminants are often present in old war zones, either from the weapons that were used (including depleted uranium found in munitions) or burn pits used to destroy weapons and equipment, as the United States did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
According to the Costs of War study, exposure to these metals can especially harm individuals as they age and during pregnancy. It can lead to cancers, issues with neurodevelopment and cardiovascular health, and birthing complications.
The Department of Defense estimated that 3.5 million American soldiers may have returned from active duty only to suffer from health problems related to toxic metal exposure. Despite this, the military has approved soldiers to continue using burn pits under certain conditions.
The Costs of War report also highlighted how those who return to war-torn areas are often exposed to these metals as they clean up, often without proper protective equipment. Additionally, water and food sources can be contaminated or even destroyed following military campaigns.
The report’s authors recommend that as civilians return to their homes in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, or Ukraine, they wear proper face coverings to prevent inhaling toxic debris, bury rather than burn trash, and take vitamin supplements to combat some of the adverse effects of exposure to heavy metals.
The report concludes that “the detonation and widespread use of heavy metals should be avoided at all costs” as “damage to the quality of air, soil, and water is long-lasting.” It adds that nations can disinvest from weapons sales and invest in more “effective and sophisticated forms of international relations” as a way to reduce civilian heavy metal exposure.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev (Gints Ivuskans/shutterstock) and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu (photocosmos1/Shutterstock)
With President Donald Trump sending mixed messages on Iran — on the one hand, reinstating his “maximum pressure” campaign and threatening military action; on the other, signaling an eagerness to negotiate — anti-diplomacy voices are working overtime to find new ways to lock the U.S. and Iran into perpetual enmity.
The last weeks have seen a mounting campaign, in both the U.S. and Israel, to integrate Azerbaijan, Iran’s northern neighbor, into the Abraham Accords — the 2020 set of “normalization deals” between Israel and a number of Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. The leading Israeli think tank Begin-Sadat Center argued that Baku would be a perfect addition to the club. A number of influential rabbis, led by the founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, Marvin Hier, and the main rabbi of the UAE, Eli Abadi (who happens to be a close associate to Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, who was himself instrumental in forging the original Abraham Accords), also sent a letter to Trump promoting Baku’s inclusion. The Wall Street Journal and Forbes amplified these messages on their op-ed pages.
At first blush, such activism may appear puzzling. Azerbaijan, for all practical purposes, is already a close ally of Israel — to a much greater extent than any of the Arab signatories of the Abraham Accords.
When, in the early 1990s, Israel defined Iran as its main threat, it sought ties with Azerbaijan as a counter. Baku has benefited greatly from that relationship: Israel played a key role in Azerbaijan’s defeat of Armenia in wars over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region in 2020 and 2023. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Israel accounted for up to 70% of Azerbaijan’s imports of advanced weaponry. Azerbaijan, in turn, is Israel’s main supplier of oil, accounting for up to 40% of overall oil imports. Baku never suspended oil shipments during Israel’s war in Gaza after October 7, 2023. In a sign of further developing ties, Azerbaijan’s state oil company SOCAR recently acquired a 10% stake in Israel’s offshore “Tamar” gas field.
Thus, the added value of Azerbaijan joining the Abraham Accords is not obvious on its merits alone. The real agenda here appears to be to add the United States to the existing bilateral alliance. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office, in fact, announced that Israel seeks to “establish a strong foundation for trilateral collaboration” with the U.S. and Azerbaijan. Seth Cropsey and Joseph Epstein spelled out the aim of such an alliance in their March 14 Wall Street Journal op-ed: to significantly increase pressure on Iran’s northern border.
Yet there is an obstacle to the full realization of that scheme: Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, enacted by Congress in the context of the first Nagorno-Karabakh war in the early 1990s at the urgings of the influential American-Armenian lobby, forbids U.S. aid and arms sales to Azerbaijan. Since the beginning of the Global War on Terror, successive presidents have waived that provision as Azerbaijan was found to be a useful partner. In that context, Baku pitched itself as a key ally against Tehran, including through illicit lobbying of Congress members.
Azerbaijan’s Israeli and American backers claim that the announcement of an impending “peace deal” between Armenia and Azerbaijan provides a good reason for Section 907 to be repealed altogether. Yet the deal is not yet signed, with Baku constantly moving the goalposts. More ominously, Baku has intensified messaging that Armenia is preparing a revanchist war to roll back its losses. Such claims, however, would seem to defy common sense as the balance of forces in the region strongly suggests that Yerevan is in no position to militarily challenge a Turkish and Israeli-backed Azerbaijan. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has insisted that he is ready to immediately sign the peace agreement with Baku.
Baku’s stalling tactics may be explained by the desire to maximize its current leverage to extract yet more territorial concessions from Yerevan and then blame Armenia for the failure of the peace talks. In particular, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev has long claimed the southern Armenian province of Syunik (known as Zangezur in Baku) as ancestral Azeri land and vowed to “return” it. It also happens to be the small slice of Armenian territory that borders Iran and cuts mainland Azerbaijan off from its exclave Nakhchivan. Azerbaijan has long demanded the establishment of the so-called “Zangezur corridor” that would connect it directly with Turkey. That demand is not addressed in the current draft peace agreement; nor, however, has it been dropped from Baku’s agenda, which makes Armenia particularly vulnerable to renewed military pressure from Azerbaijan.
For itself, Iran has made it abundantly clear that any change to the borders in the South Caucasus is unacceptable. Tehran fears that the loss of the border with Armenia will isolate it from the region and enable its rival Turkey and arch-enemy Israel to consolidate their foothold in its backyard. To prevent that, Tehran has conducted massive military exercises along its border with Azerbaijan and warned that it would intervene militarily, if necessary. So far, that has been enough to deter Baku’s irredentist plans. Those warnings have had their desired effect: since then, both Baku and Tehran have taken steps to deescalate tensions.
The push to add Azerbaijan to the Abraham Accords, which Trump considers his signature first-term foreign policy achievement, appears aimed at elevating Baku’s relationship to Washington, and thus potentially emboldening Azerbaijan to take a more assertive stance vis-à-vis Iran. Positioning Azerbaijan at the vanguard of the anti-Iran coalition also aims at galvanizing Iran’s own large Azeri community (up to 20% of the total population). Hard-line U.S. neoconservatives and organizations, such as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Hudson Institute, and their Israeli counterparts have long argued for encouraging Iran’s ethnic and religious minority communities, including Azeris, to rise up against the regime.
There is no doubt that Israel and Azerbaijan would welcome “trilateral collaboration” with the U.S. that Netanyahu’s office favors. But it is difficult to see how it would serve long-term U.S. interests, particularly its interest in avoiding new military commitments in the Greater Middle East that could entangle Washington in alliances that could drag it into new wars there, either directly or by proxy.
Moreover, there certainly isn’t any compelling reason for the U.S. to reward Azerbaijan — a far-flung, corrupt and despotic dynastic regime guilty of ethnically cleansing 120,000 Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh and abusing the human rights of its own people. Azerbaijan’s strategic significance to the U.S. is negligible. It mostly hinges on a massively inflated “Iran threat.” A far better way forward would be for Washington to settle its differences with Tehran in a peaceful way, as indeed Trump purports to want to do. Among other benefits, it would remove any excuses for unnecessary entanglements with yet more unsavory clients.
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.