Follow us on social

Eli Crane Republican Congressman

GOP Rep. Eli Crane: Do not aspire to 'empire'

In a hearing designed for threat inflation, several Republicans nonetheless questioned endless military spending

Reporting | QiOSK

In a House subcommittee hearing on U.S. national security on Tuesday, a handful of Republican lawmakers voiced support for general restraint and called for cuts to Pentagon spending, citing the debt and deficit. One even quoted John Quincy Adams.

“The United States have no business in making conquests, nor in aspiring to any kind of empire,” said freshman Rep.Congressman Eli Crane (R-Ariz.), directly quoting Adams to a panel of mostly hawkish experts. “The principal object of government is to secure the happiness of society, not to extend the boundaries of an empire.”

Crane added, “Does it concern you guys that we’re $36 trillion in debt, (with an) annual deficit of $2 trillion as we sit here and talk about the United States’ global involvement? Do any of you guys wonder when that tipping point is going to be?”

The subcommittee hearing, titled “Emerging Global Threats: Putting America’s National Security First,” featured a panel of foreign policy experts who primarily focused on why Washington needs to reassure allies of its commitment to security.

“America first does not mean America alone,” said the Heritage Foundation’s Brent Saddler. “And a key lesson of the Ukraine war, many of our Asian allies have noted, is that an ally unable to defend itself or delay adequately, an aggressor is a liability to our collective defense and very likely to suffer defeat.”

Sadler added that “America must heed this lesson as well and tend to its defenses better, to include securing our economy while our allies work with us to bolster our common defense that has been neglected for too long.”

Despite these warnings, the committee members largely focused on spending and how America’s $36 trillion debt could threaten national security.

Freshman Rep. John McGuire (R-Va.) echoed this sentiment: “I've heard people saying we need more money for Taiwan, we need more money for the Middle East. ... Number one, we have got to get our spending under control.”

Lawmakers also brought up the Pentagon at the hearing. “I want to point out that Pentagon spending is on the chopping block,” commented subcommittee chairperson Rep William Timmons (R-S.C.). “It's (discussion around Pentagon spending cuts) not only going to be on the role of foreign aid. It's going to be across the board because we have $36 trillion in debt, and we have a $2 trillion annual deficit.”


Top Photo: U.S. Representative Eli Crane (R-AZ). REUTERS/Piroschka Van De Wouw
Reporting | QiOSK
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

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.