DOHA, QATAR — The U.S. veto of the UN Security Council vote for a ceasefire in the war in Gaza is being met with widespread anger and frustration by the international community and especially in the Arab world, as reflected in opening remarks at the 21st Doha Forum in Qatar on Sunday.
Addressing the forum, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said the vote was “regrettable…that does not make it less necessary. I can promise that I will not give up.” He said since the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas in Israel and the ensuing Israeli retaliation in Gaza, “the Council’s authority and credibility were seriously undermined” by a succession of failed votes to respond to ongoing civilian carnage on the Strip.
Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, foreign minister of Qatar, said the current crisis and the U.S. reaction to it, including its thwarting of the ceasefire call (it was the only vote of disapproval; the UK abstained) was exposing the “great gap between East and West ... and double standards in the international community.” He pointed to those drawing attention to war crimes in “other contexts” (no doubt referring to Russia in Ukraine ) “hesitating to call for the end of these crimes in the Gaza strip.”
He repeatedly called for the creation of new multipolar world order that "respects justice and equality between the people where no people are more powerful than the other."
The U.S. said it did not approve the ceasefire resolution Friday because of the lack of condemnation of Hamas in the language, and that it not include a declaration of Israel’s right to defend itself. U.S. ambassador Robert Wood said halting Israel’s military action would “only plant the seeds for the next war.”
The result is that people here at the forum say they are more convinced than ever that U.S. policy is reflexively and intimately intertwined with Israel's activities in Gaza. As Mohammad Shtayyeh, prime minister of Palestine, charged, Washington has given the “greenest of green lights” to what Israel is doing on the ground. This was exacerbated this weekend with news that the Biden Administration is bypassing Congressional review to send 13,000 tank rounds to Israel. This, despite efforts by Democrats in his own party to condition the transfer of offensive weapons to prevent their use against civilians.
Meanwhile, humanitarian advocates repeatedly called the situation on the ground “unprecedented.” In an interview with Al Jazeera reporter Stefanie Dekker on the dais, Philippe Lazzarini, commissioner-general of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, said his own organization is “on the brink of collapse.” They have lost 134 relief workers in Gaza since Israeli operations began. He described staff in silent stupefaction over the loss of homes, families. “There is no doubt a ceasefire is needed; we want to put an end to hell on earth right now in Gaza.”
Khaled Saffuri, executive director of the National Interest Foundation in Washington, told RS he was struck by the backlash against American brands in his own travels in Kuwait and Qatar over the last week, citing customer and restaurant boycotts of Coke, Pepsi, MacDonald’s, and Starbucks. “It’s horrible,” he said of the lopsided UN vote. “America is losing a lot in the Muslim world.”
The American Enterprise Institute has officially entered the competition for which establishment DC think tank can come up with the most tortured argument for increasing America’s already enormous Pentagon budget.
Its angle — presented in a new report written by Elaine McCusker and Fred "Iraq Surge" Kagan — is that a Russian victory in Ukraine will require over $800 billion in additional dollars over five years for the Defense Department, whose budget is already poised to push past $1 trillion per year.
Before addressing the Ukraine conflict directly, it’s worth looking at the security outcomes of high Pentagon spending during this century. As the Costs of War Project at Brown University has found, the full costs of America’s post-9/11 wars exceed $8 trillion. In addition, hundreds of thousands of people have died, millions have been driven from their homes, thousands of U.S. personnel have died in combat, and hundreds of thousands of vets have suffered physical or psychological injuries. And this huge cost in blood and treasure came in conflicts that not only failed to achieve their original objectives but actually left the target nations less stable and helped create conditions that made it easier for terrorist groups like ISIS to form.
Any call for ratcheting up Pentagon spending needs to reckon with this record of abject failure for a military first, “peace through strength” foreign policy. The new AEI report fails to do so.
As for its central thesis — that a Russian victory in Ukraine will require a sharp upsurge in Pentagon spending — neither part of the argument holds up to scrutiny.
Russia’s performance in Ukraine makes it abundantly clear that Moscow’s armed forces are deeply flawed. They are in a stalemate with a much smaller neighboring country that has parlayed superior morale and an infusion of U.S. and European weaponry into a fighting force that can hold its own against Russia’s much larger military. The only prospect for a Russian victory would be a long war of attrition in which Moscow’s advantages in population and arms production “win” the day.
But even a prolonged war is unlikely to result in total military victory for a Russia, and governing whatever portions of Ukraine it might control will be extremely costly, both economically and in terms of personnel. As a result, even if Moscow were to eventually win a Pyrrhic victory in Ukraine, it would be in no position to take on the 31 member NATO alliance. And it is long past time for our European allies to finally build a coherent military force that can defend its territory without a major U.S. supporting role.
The AEI report is wildly out of touch with current realities, which are tilting towards an approach that would pair continued support for Ukraine’s defensive capabilities with the beginnings of diplomatic track, an approach my colleagues at the Quincy Institute have been advocating since early in the conflict.
We are confronted with an almost mystical belief in official Washington that the first answer to any tough security problem is to increase Pentagon spending and spin out scenarios for addressing a potential war, rather than crafting a strategy in which preventing or ending wars takes precedence.
A cold, hard look at the wars of this century definitively shows that a military first foreign policy is a fool’s errand that does far more harm than good. How long will the American public sit still for this misguided, immensely costly conventional wisdom?
It’s long past time to take a fresh look at America’s military spending and strategy. Unfortunately, the new AEI report does little to reckon with the actual challenges we face.
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: Diplomacy Watch: US empties more weapons stockpiles for Ukraine ahead of Biden exit
The Biden administration is putting together a final Ukraine aid package — about $500 million in weapons assistance — as announced in Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s final meeting with the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which coordinates weapons support to Ukraine.
The capabilities in the announcement include small arms and ammunition, communications equipment, AIM-7, RIM-7, and AIM-9M missiles, and F-16 air support.
“We all have a stake in ensuring that autocrats cannot place their imperial ambitions ahead of the bedrock rights of free and sovereign peoples,” Defense Secretary Austin remarked to the Ukraine Defense Contact Group before announcing the aid. “Ukraine is waging a just war of self-defense. And it is one of the great causes of our time.”
The Defense Contact Group was formed by Austin; its future remains unclear as administrations prepare to change hands.
Indeed, incoming President Donald Trump has increasingly critiqued Biden's Ukraine strategy. In a news conference from Mar-a-Lago earlier this week, the president-elect said that the Biden administration’s talk of Ukraine’s possible NATO ascension played a role in Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine.
"A big part of the problem is, Russia — for many, many years, long before Putin — said, 'You could never have NATO involved with Ukraine.' Now, they've said that. That's been, like, written in stone," Trump said.
"And somewhere along the line Biden said, 'No. [Ukraine] should be able to join NATO.' Well, then Russia has somebody right on their doorstep, and I could understand their feelings about that."
Trump’s comments about Russia’s invasion rationale follow other critical remarks regarding war. In particular, Trump recently emphasized there had to be a “deal” on Ukraine, as people are “dying at levels nobody has ever seen.” He had also said in his 2024 Person of the Year Interview With TIME that “the number of people dying [in the Ukraine war is] not sustainable…It’s really an advantage to both sides to get this thing done.”
Trump's pick for Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg, meanwhile, has postponed a trip to Ukraine, originally set for early this month, until sometime after Trump’s inauguration. According to Newsweek, reasons for the postponement have not been made public, and a new trip date has yet to be determined.
— Ukraine launched a second Kursk offensive this week, according to ABC News. "We continue to maintain a buffer zone on Russian territory, actively destroying Russian military potential there," Zelensky said about the offensive. Ukraine also hit a Russian air force oil depot in Engles, in Russia’s Saratov territory, hundreds of miles within the country’s borders on Wednesday, where a state of emergency has been declared in response.
— Russia says it’s captured the Ukrainian town of Kurakhove; Ukrainian forces say the city is still being fought over, according to AFP. Russia also bombed Ukrainian city Zaporizhzhia on Wednesday in an attack injuring 100 and killing 13.
— The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared on X that Ukraine could replace Hungary’s role in NATO or the EU “if Hungary chooses to vacate it in favor of membership in the CIS or CSTO.” The Ukrainian MFA’s tongue-in-cheek statement, showcasing growing tensions between Ukraine and Hungary, was made in an X thread accusing Hungary’s leadership of “manipulative statements” about Ukraine’s recent decision to end gas transits from Russia to Europe. Namely, Hungarian FM Péter Szijjártó had threatened to block Ukrainian EU ascension over the gas transit halt, which he said could hurt Europe’s energy security.
"A country that signs an Association Agreement with the EU or aspires to become an EU member must contribute to the EU's energy security by providing transit routes. Therefore, closing gas or oil routes is unacceptable and contradicts the expectations associated with EU integration,” FM Péter Szijjártó said.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Houthi fighters parade in Sana a amid tensions with USA and Israel. Houthi fighters parade during a mobilization campaign, in Sana a, Yemen, 18 December 2024.IMAGO/ Sanaa Yemen Copyright: xHamzaxAlix via REUTERS
The ineffective U.S. military campaign against the Houthis in Yemen is now a year old.
Based on new reports, based on two sources in the Jerusalem Post, there are hints that that the incoming Trump administration may be planning to escalate it. The paper says the Biden administration is reportedly planning to intensify the bombings before Jan. 21. Then, according to the Post, Trump will be looking to ramp up the military campaign even more once he is sworn in.
Former Trump administration Iran envoy Elliott Abrams told the Post, “Trump will not stand for having US Navy ships attacked every day by the Houthis using Iranian missiles. … He will hit the Houthis harder, and he will threaten Iran that if a missile [that] Iran supplied kills an American, Iran will get hit directly.”
Trump did not have anything to say about the bombing campaign against the Houthis during his presidential campaign, but escalation in Yemen would be consistent with the general hawkish leanings of his national security team and it would be in line with Trump’s approach to Yemen when he was last in the White House.
Biden’s unauthorized war in Yemen began last January in response to Houthi missile and drone attacks on Red Sea shipping. The Houthis launched their attack as a protest against Israel’s war in Gaza, and they are likely to continue them as long as that war lasts. Unsurprisingly, the bombing campaign has not deterred the Houthis from launching additional attacks on commercial shipping.
Judged on its own terms, the U.S.-led intervention in Yemen has been a failure.
The conflict has received relatively little attention over the last year, but it is still consuming U.S. resources and contributing to the U.S. Navy’s overstretch. U.S. forces struck targets in Yemen again last week. Meanwhile, the Houthis and Israel have continued exchanging blows over the last several months. Israel launched strikes on the international airport in the capital Sanaa and on several ports in late December after another Houthi missile launch into Israeli territory.
In addition to possibly escalating the military campaign, the Trump administration may also place the Houthis back on the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list. When the outgoing Trump administration designated the group in early 2021, the director of the World Food Program at the time, David Beasley, said, “We are struggling now without the designation. With the designation, it's going to be catastrophic.”
The Biden administration removed the group from this list after the United Nations and aid groups warned that the designation would have devastating effects on Yemen’s economy and exacerbate the humanitarian crisis.
Hawkish critics condemned the Biden administration’s removal of the Houthis as “weakness,” and they have been clamoring for redesignation ever since. Trump’s choice for national security adviser, Mike Waltz, has been a vocal advocate of redesignating the Houthis since the first weeks of the war in Gaza.
Now that the U.S. is directly fighting the Houthis, it seems likely that Waltz would be even more adamant in pushing for this change. Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), has also been a proponent of redesignation. Placing the Houthis back on the FTO list would still have all the same severe downsides as before, but Trump and his team may not care about the destructive consequences that designation would have for the people of Yemen.
If Trump believes that redesignation will make him look “tougher” than Biden, that might be all that Waltz and Rubio need to get him to agree.
Congress never debated or voted to authorize a bombing campaign in Yemen. While the Biden administration claims that the president has Article II authority to conduct these operations without congressional approval, there is no real legal justification for keeping U.S. ships engaged in hostilities for a year unless Congress has explicitly authorized it. The lack of authorization is unlikely to matter to the incoming Trump administration. During the first term, Trump presided over unauthorized U.S. involvement in a different military campaign in Yemen, namely the Saudi coalition intervention. When Congress passed a war powers resolution to demand an end to U.S. involvement, he vetoed the measure.
The incoming president had a habit in his first term of escalating the wars he inherited, from Somalia to Yemen to Afghanistan (though he eventually passed a deal with the Taliban to withdraw U.S. troops from that country). Based on his previous disregard for Congress’s role in matters of war, Trump is unlikely to be bothered by the illegality of the war in Yemen.
Escalation in Yemen would be a mistake. It is unlikely to achieve anything except to kill more Yemenis, put U.S. sailors at risk, and waste more expensive munitions. The Houthis have not been discouraged from launching attacks after more than a year of military action, and they are unlikely to respond differently once Trump is in office.
The U.S. ought to be using all its influence and leverage to bring the war in Gaza to an end in order to wind down the wider regional conflict with which it is interwoven. Beyond that, the U.S. should be looking for ways to extract itself from Middle Eastern conflicts rather than finding excuses to expand them.
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.