Follow us on social

By the numbers: US Gaza pier project appears sunk

By the numbers: US Gaza pier project appears sunk

You decide whether it was worth it

Reporting | QiOSK

On Friday, U.S. officials said that the pier built in May to distribute humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip was once again suspending operations — this time potentially for good.

The Biden administration has praised the project, but critics have called it “humanitarian theater,” and a "failure," as it's proven to be wholly inadequate for providing assistance to Gaza, where famine is looming and hospitals are unable to operate.

RS has been raising concerns about the project, mainly the costs, dangers, and lack of effectiveness associated with it. Moreover, asking why the White House chose this risky option instead of the far simpler solution of pressuring Israel to open humanitarian crossings and protect aid workers inside the Strip.

Today we let the numbers associated with this seemingly ill-fated venture do the talking:

69: It took 69 days in between Biden’s announcement during the State of the Union that the U.S. military would build “temporary pier in the Mediterranean on the Gaza coast that can receive large ships carrying food, war, medicine and temporary shelters … and ensure that humanitarian workers aren’t caught in the crossfire,” and the day that the pier was completed. Two days after construction concluded, on May 17, the first trucks rolled down the pier.

4: The U.S. was forced to halt operations 4 different times since May 17, mostly due to weather events. Operations were suspended between May 28 and June 7; June 9-10; June 15-20; and finally on June 28.

47 and 25, and 19: In the 47 days since the pier was built it was only operational for 25 of them, and aid only came in, at most, on 19 of those days.

That means that the U.S. military only delivered aid through the port for less than half of the total possible days.

For a significant portion of this timeframe — between June 9 and June 28 — the U.N. World Food Programme did not distribute any of the goods that were piling up on shore, due to fears that they could be targeted by Israeli air strikes and other security fears.

19.4: The pier was used to get approximately 19.4 million pounds of food into Gaza. It is unclear exactly how much of that aid has made its way to the suffering population — though a “vast majority” of it was never distributed.

NBC News reported on the day that the U.N. resumed food distribution that roughly 15 million pounds of food and other aid materials had accumulated on the shore during the days when the pier was operational but no aid was being given to Gazans. If this total was included in the 19.4 million pound estimate, that means that as little as 4.4 million pounds may have actually been moved into the Strip.

Even if the entirety of 19.4 million pounds had been distributed to the people, that would still represent a far from sufficient total. Based on past estimates from both the Israeli government and UNRWA, 19.4 million pounds would translate to roughly 646 truckloads in the last month and a half. Experts have said that somewhere between 300 and 600 truckloads worth of aid are needed every day in order to avoid a full-blown famine in Gaza.

320 (or 230): When the construction for the pier began in April, the Pentagon anticipated a $320 million price tag to build it and operate it for 90 days. In June, DOD revised the estimate down to $230 million, because “costs for contracted trucks, drivers and commercial vessels were lower than expected and the United Kingdom contributed a berthing vessel for soldiers and sailors.”

The final figure could end up being slightly different, since the pier has undergone a series of repairs (the first set of repairs cost roughly $22 million), and because, if operations are indeed halted, the pier would have operated for less than half of the original 90-day plan.






Reporting | QiOSK
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.