Follow us on social

First effort to scrutinize Israel’s war fails in Senate

First effort to scrutinize Israel’s war fails in Senate

Resolution, introduced by Sen. Sanders, would have forced ‘modest’ restraints on the use of US weapons in Gaza

Reporting | QiOSK

The first Congressional vote focused on Israel’s conduct during its ongoing war on Gaza took place on Tuesday evening. It failed when a motion to table the resolution passed by 72 votes to 11.

The resolution in question, introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) last month, would have forced the State Department to issue a report detailing whether Israel was using weapons provided by Washington to commit human rights violations.

The eleven Senators who voted to advance the resolution were Laphonza Butler (D-Calif.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Sanders.

During his remarks on the floor, Sanders said that his resolution was “not a radical idea” but rather “a very modest, common sense proposal.”

“This is a simple request for information,” Sanders said. “That is all this resolution is about. It does not alter aid to Israel in any way, it simply requests a report on how US aid is being used.” As Sanders noted, serious discussion about unconditional support for Israel’s war has been severely lacking in the U.S. Congress.

The Senator from Vermont went on to describe why this report would be important, describing the striking figures of death, destruction, and displacement in Gaza. Over 24,000 Palestinians have been killed, 1.9 million forced from their homes, and more than 46,000 homes completely destroyed in the 100 days since Israel officially declared war.

“As we all know, the military campaign being waged by the right-wing Netanyahu government has led to massive destruction and widespread civilian harm,” Sanders said. “This has been far and away the most intensive bombing campaign of the 21st century.”

“When there's been this level of casualties, and we are this closely tied to it, it is the right thing to do to get the type of information that would come through this request,” said. Merkley, speaking in support of the resolution.

The resolution was introduced under section 502B(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act. This national security tool has not been used to successfully get a report from the State Department since 1976. Had the resolution passed, the State Department would have had 30 days to submit its report, after which the Senate would have the opportunity to vote to either continue, alter, or terminate aid to Israel.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) spoke out in opposition to Sanders’s resolution, calling it “the most tone deaf thing, maybe in the history of the Senate.”

Graham said that he could “only imagine the joy that terrorist groups throughout the world have that we've been talking about such a proposal.” The senator also used his time to blast calls for a ceasefire, saying that one would allow Hamas to regroup, even though the resolution makes no mention of a ceasefire and Sanders himself has not called for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Last week, 75 organizations, including the Quincy Institute, which publishes RS, signed a letter in support of the resolution.

“S.Res.504 offers an opportunity to affirm Congress’s important oversight role, mandating that the Biden administration document and report on any human rights violations committed by the Israeli government,” the letter read. “Congress should ensure that arms transfers and military aid provided to Israel, or any country, are consistent with U.S. law and policy, international law, and civilian protection responsibilities. The resolution would be an important step toward these goals.”


Photo: C-SPAN

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.