Follow us on social

google cta
GOP candidates: Latest US strikes in Syria not enough

GOP candidates: Latest US strikes in Syria not enough

Republicans want war with Iran, or at least they said so on TV.

Analysis | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

Hours after the Department of Defense announced that two F-15s engaged in "precision self-defense strikes" against a suspected weapons storehouse used by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) "and affiliated groups," the Republican candidates on stage at the presidential debate suggested it was not enough.

Said Sen. Tim Scott:

"If you want to stop the 40 Plus attacks on military personnel in the Middle East, you have to strike in Iran. If you want to make a difference. You cannot just continue to have strikes in Syria on warehouses you actually have to cut off the head of the snake and the head of the snake is Iran and not simply the proxies, in order for us to have a powerful response from America we have to be in a position of strength. As president of the United States my foreign policy is simple. You cannot negotiate with evil. You have to destroy it."

By all accounts the Pentagon has been trying to keep the violence in Israel-Gaza from spilling over into the nearby region where it has 2500 troops in Iraq and 900 in Syria (not counting the additional forces that came with the two Navy carrier groups after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks). It's been difficult. Its troops in both Syria and Iraq have come under repeated rocket and drone attacks, leaving more than 45 with injuries, twice as many as the DOD acknowledged last week.

Then on Wednesday it was reported that an American MQ Reaper drone had been downed near the coast of Yemen, an incident that is still "being assessed." Suffice it to say, things are tense. Responsible Statecraft is tracking the U.S. military build-up, and incidents, here.

These Republicans, who are so committed to looking "strong," "tough," and dedicated to destroying Hamas (their words) and by extension, Hezbollah and Iran (their words), believe that tip-toeing around (or what they called "appeasement") is for children, or, as they referred to President Joe Biden, weak leaders who aren't protecting America.

Former Amb. Nikki Haley:

"We need to understand this as Iran giving the green light telling them (militias) what to do. And we shouldn't be doing the tit for tat like what Joe Biden has done. We need to go and take out their infrastructure that they are using to make those strikes work so they can never do it again. Iran responds to strike. You punch them one and you punch them hard and they will back off... We don't need him (Biden) going and sitting there tiptoeing around Iran, because he thinks they're going to do something you don't respond to an enemy and a terrorist with fear. You respond with strength. When you do that, that's when the world pays attention. And that's when Iran stops."

Haley said there would "be no" Hamas, Hezbollah, or Houthis in Yemen without Iran, and went on to blame China and Russia "who is funding Iran right now...the is a unholy alliance."

Ron DeSantis blamed President Biden for leaving the troops out there like "sitting ducks" and said it would be "hell to pay" if he were president and they were harmed. (He did not say if he agreed they should be in Iraq and Syria in the first place, or if he would bring them home). Vivek Ramaswamy, during his turn to talk about Israel's right to defend itself (a point stressed by each of the five candidates with increasing degrees of vigor, including Chris Christie's "wipe Hamas off the map") did raise a note of caution.

"I want to be careful to avoid making the mistakes from the neocon establishment of the past. Corrupt politicians in both parties spent millions, maybe billions for themselves in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting wars that sent thousands of our sons and daughters, people my age, to die in wars that did not advance anyone's interests, adding $7 trillion to our national debt."

He did not explain what the alternative in the Middle East might look like. Interestingly for the hyperbole expended on Israel and Iran, a slight cooling has started to set in on the GOP candidates' rhetoric on Ukraine. Whereas in the first debate it was all about full-throated support for Zelensky — "whatever it takes" — now Republicans like Scott are saying the Congress should pass Israel aid first and immediately, then debate Ukraine aid and how it should be be spent.

Ramaswamy, who had warned about the lack of a clear strategy from the start, didn't let this slip from note. "I'm actually enjoying watching the Ukraine hawks quietly, delicately tiptoe back from their position as this thing has unwound into a disaster. The first half of this race I was the only person standing for it now they're actually quietly coming around to be more cautious, as they should."


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former biotech executive Vivek Ramaswamy debate at the third Republican candidates' U.S. presidential debate hosted by NBC News in Miami, Florida, November 8, 2023. REUTERS/Mike Segar

google cta
Analysis | QiOSK
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025
Top image credit: Dabari CGI/Shutterstock

The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025

Media

I spent the last few weeks asking experts about the foreign policy books that stood out in 2025. My goal was to create a wide-ranging list, featuring volumes that shed light on the most important issues facing American policymakers today, from military spending to the war in Gaza and the competition with China. Here are the eight books that made the cut.

keep readingShow less
Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war
Top image credit: People walking on Red square in Moscow in winter. (Oleg Elkov/Shutterstock)

Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war

Europe

After its emergence from the Soviet collapse, the new Russia grappled with the complex issue of developing a national identity that could embrace the radical contradictions of Russia’s past and foster integration with the West while maintaining Russian distinctiveness.

The Ukraine War has significantly changed public attitudes toward this question, and led to a consolidation of most of the Russian population behind a set of national ideas. This has contributed to the resilience that Russia has shown in the war, and helped to frustrate Western hopes that economic pressure and heavy casualties would undermine support for the war and for President Vladimir Putin. To judge by the evidence to date, there is very little hope of these Western goals being achieved in the future.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.