Follow us on social

Nikki Haley's moral compass

Nikki Haley's moral compass

Where was it pointing when she personally signed 'finish them' on artillery shells headed for Gaza?

Analysis | Middle East

While visiting Israel this week, Nikki Haley crouched down with a purple pen in her hand and wrote “Finish Them!” on an artillery shell.

While we cannot get into her head, we’re sure by “them,” she meant Hamas, which is understandable given that group’s terrorist attack on Israel on October 7. She said as much during a subsequent interview: “We know as long as Hamas exists, it can happen again, and that’s why I’ve said from the very beginning, you need to finish them — once and for all,” she said.

But Israel’s weapons (most of the them supplied by the United States) used against “them” have also killed thousands of innocent civilians, indiscriminately, in the Gaza Strip. Uncounted more are still under the rubble, caused by nearly constant airstrikes and drone attacks throughout the 141 square mile territory, over the span of six months. Some 62 percent of homes have been completely destroyed and 84 percent of hospitals and health facilities, as of early April. Haley’s dark autograph came just days after Israel was roundly condemned internationally for striking a tent camp for displaced Palestinians, killing 45 people and wounding 249.

Amnesty International posted on X in response to Haley, “Conflict is no place for stunts. Conflict has rules. Civilians must be protected.”

Democratic Congressman Jamal Bowman of New York went much further, telling CNN, “She's a disgusting human being to do that. That's genocidal language… Nikki Haley should be ashamed of herself.”

Influencer Wajahit Ali said on TikTok, “If you think that Biden and Democrats are terrible on Gaza — I think they’ve been terrible — just know Republicans will be far, far worse, and I give you Nikki Haley.”

Something as serious as war “is no place for stunts” and considering the astronomical civilian casualty rates, it is no surprise that Haley's language, plastered across a bomb ostensibly to be used in densely populated centers such as Rafah and its environs, has struck some as “genocidal."

Ali’s insistence that Republicans would be “far, far worse” regarding America’s Israel policy is also true. In part.

It just depends on what kind of Republican.

Haley is the former governor of South Carolina and the former ambassador to the United Nations under President Donald Trump. She is also arguably the most relevant high profile neoconservative right now. If you still long for the Bush-Cheney years, think the Iraq war was the right thing to do, the Patriot Act was good policy, wonder why America hasn't invaded Iran yet, and are disappointed the U.S. is no longer in Afghanistan, Nikki Haley is for you.

These kinds of sentiments are what it meant to be a Republican in the aughts. They defined the party. In a post-Trump Republican party, foreign policy is more of a debate. If “Blame America First” — a barb that conservatives would regularly hurl at Iraq war critics— might have resonated in 2004, plain old “America First” works better for many Republicans in 2024.

The word “warmonger,” whether used by the populist right of Trump or the old progressive left of Noam Chomsky, implies that waging war is a top priority for the monger. If so, any concern for unavoidable casualties that come with any war are not only not a priority, they are not even a reality at all. You pretend they don’t matter or aren’t even a factor.

You just ignore them.

When Haley writes “Finish Them” on an Israeli weapon, she is not thinking of a family being terrorized from above or a 3-year-old girl being exploded. Right now, so many more civilians are being killed by Israel’s military in Gaza than members of Hamas, drawing attention and condemnation from around the world.

But that reality doesn’t exist for Haley. Just ask her. “Israel, they’re the good guys,” she said. “And you know what I want Israelis to know? You’re doing the right thing.”

“Don’t let anybody make you feel wrong,” Haley insisted.

Writing “Finish Them” on a weapon in the midst of one of the bloodiest conflicts of our time is rightly horrifying to regular people with normal moral compasses. Where is the neoconservatives' moral compass pointing right now? Where is Nikki Haley's?


Former Republican presidential contender Nikki Haley tours Kibbutz Nir Oz in the aftermath of the deadly October 7 attack by Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, southern Israel May 27, 2024. REUTERS/Amir Cohen/File Photo

Analysis | Middle East
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
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: White House April 7, 2025

Polls: Americans don't support Trump's war on Iran

Military Industrial Complex

While there are serious doubts about the accuracy of President Donald Trump’s claims about the effectiveness of his attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, the U.S./Israeli war on Iran has provided fresh and abundant evidence of widespread opposition to war in the United States.

With a tenuous ceasefire currently holding, several nationwide surveys suggest Trump’s attack, which plunged the country into yet another offensive war in the Middle East, has been broadly unpopular across the country.

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.