U.S. Threatens Iran to Return to Nuclear Deal, Refuses to Lift Sanctions

U.S. Threatens Iran to Return to Nuclear Deal, Refuses to Lift Sanctions

U.S. officials stepped up their rhetoric against Iran Wednesday, warning that Washington will have to consider other “options” if attempts to revive the nuclear deal fail.

At a joint press conference with his Israeli and UAE counterparts in Washington, Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned “time is running out” for Iran to return to talks. “We are prepared to turn to other options if Iran doesn’t change course, and these consultations with our allies and partners are a part of that,” Blinken said.

Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid made it clear that Blinken’s “other options” are a threat. “I would like to start by repeating what the Secretary of State just said.  Yes, other options are going to be on the table if diplomacy fails.  And by saying other options, I think everybody understands here, in Israel, in the Emirates, and in Tehran what is it that we mean,” he said.

Lapid said Israel “reserves the right to act at any given moment, in any way” against Iran. Just about every day, Israeli officials are threatening to attack Iran more than they already do through covert operations. By coordinating so closely with the Israelis on Iran, the Biden administration is not sending a good signal to Tehran.

Also on Wednesday, President special envoy for Iran Robert Malley also signaled that the US was making other preparations. “We will be prepared to adjust to a different reality in which we have to deal with all options to address Iran’s nuclear program if it’s not prepared to come back into the constraints of 2016,” he said, referring to the year the JCPOA was first implemented.

President Biden first said the U.S. would consider “other options” if diplomacy with Iran failed at the end of August, which Iran took as a threat. Now the talking point is spreading through his administration.

Negotiations to revive the JCPOA have been stalled since June 20th. The new Iranian government of President Ebrahim Raisi has said it’s ready to return to the table but has not set a date. Iran was hoping for a sign of good faith from the Biden administration through the release of frozen funds. But instead, the U.S. maintains virtually all Trump-era sanctions and U.S. officials are ramping up their rhetoric.

This article was originally featured at Antiwar.com and is republished with permission.

U.S. House to Vote on Amendments to End War in Yemen

U.S. House to Vote on Amendments to End War in Yemen

The House is expected to vote Thursday on two amendments (#28 and #30) to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that call for the end or limitation of U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.

One amendment, sponsored by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), calls for the termination of all U.S. logistical support for the coalition.

The Khanna amendment would terminate “U.S. military logistical support, and the transfer of spare parts to Saudi warplanes conducting aerial strikes against the Houthis in Yemen and permanently ends intelligence sharing that enables offensive strikes and any U.S. effort to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany Saudi or United Arab Emirates-led coalition forces in the war in Yemen.”

The other amendment, sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), calls for the suspension of the US servicing of Saudi warplanes that are responsible for civilian casualties in Yemen, although the wording leaves room for exceptions.

The Meeks amendment would require “the suspension of US sustainment and maintenance support to Saudi air force units responsible for airstrikes resulting in civilian casualties in Yemen with certain exemptions for territorial self-defense, counterterrorism operations, and defense of U.S. government facilities or personnel.”

Click here to find your representative by zip code and call them to urge for a vote in support of these amendments to finally put an end to the vicious war against the people of Yemen.

President Biden vowed in February to end support for Saudi Arabia’s “offensive” operations in Yemen. But it was revealed in April that the Pentagon is still servicing Saudi warplanes that are bombing Yemen. Without this support, Riyadh’s air force would quickly be grounded.

Last week, the State Department approved a $500 million contract to service Saudi helicopters, including Apache and Black Hawk attack helicopters, a sign that the Biden administration will not end support for the Saudi air force unless pressured by Congress.

Besides the military support, the U.S. has given the Saudis political cover to continue enforcing the blockade on Yemen. Conditions caused by the blockade and air campaign have caused widespread disease and mass starvation in the country. In February, the UN warned that 400,000 Yemeni children under the age of five will die of starvation in 2021 alone if conditions don’t change, which means hundreds of thousands of children could have already died this year.

The Yemen amendments have a good chance of succeeding, as similar efforts have passed through Congress in the past. In 2019, the House and Senate passed a War Powers Resolution that would have ended U.S. support for the war in Yemen, but the bill was vetoed by President Trump.

The House is also expected to vote on an amendment sponsored by Rep. Jamal Bowman (D-NY) that would prohibit a U.S. military presence in Syria without the approval of Congress.

This article was originally featured at Antiwar.com and is republished with permission.

Taliban Forswears Attacks on Foreign Nations, Pledges Opposition to Outside Militants

Taliban Forswears Attacks on Foreign Nations, Pledges Opposition to Outside Militants

Afghanistan’s acting foreign minister held his first news conference on Tuesday and reiterated a pledge from the Taliban that the new government would not allow militants inside Afghanistan to attack other countries.

“We will not allow anyone or any groups to use our soil against any other countries,” said Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi, a member of the Taliban since the 1990s.

Since the U.S. withdrawal, Western media has been full of stories conflating the Taliban with al-Qaeda and warning that al-Qaeda will gain a foothold in Afghanistan. But the Taliban have a clear interest in not giving the U.S. another pretext to invade Afghanistan.

The narrative that the Taliban will provide a “safe haven” to al-Qaeda ignores the fact that the Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to the Bush administration multiple times in 2001. Even before the September 11th attacks, the Taliban offered the U.S. to put bin Laden on trial.

Afghanistan just happens to be where bin Laden was at the time of the September 11th attacks. None of the hijackers were Afghans and much of the plot was planned in other countries, including the US and Germany.

Besides al-Qaeda, the U.S. is also concerned with the Afghan ISIS affiliate, known as ISIS-K, the group that took credit for the suicide bombing at the Kabul airport. But the Taliban and ISIS-K are sworn enemies. The U.S. has even provided air support to the Taliban in its fight against ISIS-K.

While the Taliban have said they don’t need any more help from the U.S. to fight ISIS-K or other groups, they do want relations with the U.S., something Muttaqi reiterated on Tuesday.

Muttaqi also called on the U.S. to release frozen Afghan funds since the Taliban cooperated on the evacuation. “We provided safe passage for U.S. soldiers to leave Afghanistan, but instead of thanking us the U.S. has frozen Afghanistan’s assets,” he said.

This article was originally featured at Antiwar.com and is republished with permission.

$2.3 Trillion Spent in War on Afghanistan, New Report Tabulates

$2.3 Trillion Spent in War on Afghanistan, New Report Tabulates

Brown University’s Costs of War project released an updated report Wednesday on U.S. spending for the war in Afghanistan. The report found that since the 2001 invasion, Washington has sunk over $2.3 trillion into the war.

The spending includes operations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and is broken down into five categories. The biggest chunk is the Defense Department’s budget for the war, which is just over $1 trillion. The State Department’s war budget adds another $60 billion. War-related Increases to the Pentagon budget account for $433 billion.

Estimated interest payments on war borrowing accounts for $532 billion, and spending on care for veterans of the war adds up to $233 billion. Costs of War did not account for future interest payments or future spending on lifelong care for veterans, so the total will still increase even after the U.S. completes its military withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Costs of War released its last Afghanistan update in April 2021. At the time, the project estimated the war cost $2.26 trillion. The project also tracks casualties of the war. As of April, Costs of War estimates up to 241,000 people were killed in the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Out of the 241,000 people killed, 71,344 were civilians, including 47,245 in Afghanistan and 24,099 in Pakistan. The numbers do not account for indirect deaths due to conditions caused by the war, like loss of access to food, disease, or infrastructure damage.

The Taliban take over of Afghanistan and the swift collapse of the U.S.-backed government shows that the massive amount of spending was for nothing, except to line the pockets of U.S. defense contractors.

This article was originally featured at Antiwar.com and is republished with permission.

SIGAR Report: A ‘Victorious’ Withdrawal From Afghanistan Was Impossible

SIGAR Report: A ‘Victorious’ Withdrawal From Afghanistan Was Impossible

The U.S. government watchdog for Afghanistan released its final lessons learned report on Tuesday that said a “victorious U.S. withdrawal” was impossible due to unrealistic and shortsighted goals set by Washington.

Since its inception in 2008, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) has documented the corruption and waste involved in Washington’s failed nation-building project in Afghanistan. The report released Tuesday says that U.S. officials never took seriously what it would take to establish a sustainable government in Afghanistan.

The report reads: “The U.S. government consistently underestimated the amount of time required to rebuild Afghanistan, and created unrealistic timelines and expectations that prioritized spending quickly. These choices increased corruption and reduced the effectiveness of programs.”

SIGAR said Washington’s view on the project led to “short-term solutions,” such as the surge of troops that started in 2009 during the Obama administration. The report said the U.S. created unrealistic timelines for transforming areas the U.S. captured from the Taliban.

“U.S. officials created explicit timelines in the mistaken belief that a decision in Washington could transform the calculus of complex Afghan institutions, powerbrokers, and communities contested by the Taliban,” the report said. Ultimately, the timelines created “perverse incentives to spend quickly and focus on short-term, unsustainable goals that could not create the conditions to allow a victorious U.S. withdrawal.”

Nothing demonstrated the futility of the U.S.’ nation-building project better than the speed at which the Taliban took over Afghanistan and how quickly the Afghan military rolled over.

The SIGAR report reads: “When the United States began withdrawing its final forces from Afghanistan in the summer of 2021, the Taliban took the opportunity to seize more than a quarter of the country in a matter of weeks, as Afghan security forces abandoned their posts or were overrun. Thus, what Ambassador Nicholas Burns observed about the war’s early years has remained true ever since: The Afghan government ‘cannot survive without us.’”

Nicolas Burns served as George W. Bush’s NATO ambassador during the early years of the war. He is one of many U.S. government officials that SIGAR has interviewed over the years. In December 2019, The Washington Post published a cache of SIGAR interviews in a report known as the Afghanistan Papers. The devastating release revealed what most critics of the war already knew: The U.S. government knew it was losing the war and lied about it.

SIGAR chief John Sopko told NPR that he hopes the latest report will teach the U.S. not to do something like this again. “There’s a tendency after failures like this or Vietnam to sweep it under the rug and say, we’re never going to do it again. Well, after Vietnam, we eliminated a lot of the capabilities to carry out counterinsurgencies and to try to develop countries. And guess what? We did do it again. We did it in Iraq. We did it in Afghanistan. So what we’re trying to tell people with this report is, let’s try to learn from the 20 years so we don’t do something this bad…again,” he said.

President Biden is under fire for how the withdrawal was played out. The U.S. is still evacuating personnel and Afghan allies from the Kabul airport. But as the SIGAR report says, what the U.S. would view as a “victorious” withdrawal was impossible. And a “victorious” withdrawal would involve the U.S. funding the Afghan military for years to come, fueling a brutal proxy war.

This article was originally featured at Antiwar.com and is republished with permission.

U.S. Emergency Deploys 3,000 Additional Soldiers to Afghanistan to Evacuate Embassy

The U.S. is sending about 3,000 troops to Afghanistan to help evacuate some personnel from the U.S. embassy in Kabul as the Taliban is making rapid gains across the country.

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said the U.S. is sending three infantry battalions that are due to arrive at the airport in Kabul within 48 hours. Additionally, an entire infantry brigade combat team is being sent to Kuwait to be put on stand by that could also be deployed to Afghanistan, and 1,000 troops are being deployed to Qatar to process visas for Afghan interpreters who worked for the U.S. In total, the U.S. is deploying 8,000 troops to the Gulf and Afghanistan.

State Department spokesman Ned Price said the U.S. would be “further reducing our civilian footprint in Kabul” but insisted that the embassy was not closing. He said there will be a “drawdown” of diplomatic personnel, but did not specify how many people are expected to leave. There are about 4,000 civilian personnel at the embassy, including 1,400 U.S. citizens.

A new U.S. intelligence assessment predicts Kabul could fall to the Taliban within 30 to 90 days, much quicker than what the US initially predicted in June. U.S. officials told The New York Times that the Biden administration is preparing for a possible collapse of the Afghan government within 30 days.

The U.S. embassy in Kabul issued a warning to U.S. citizens in Afghanistan on Thursday to leave the country immediately. “Given the security conditions and reduced staffing, the embassy’s ability to assist U.S. citizens in Afghanistan is extremely limited even within Kabul,” a notice on the embassy’s website said.

The U.S. had plans to keep about 650 troops at the embassy in Kabul after President Biden’s August 31st withdrawal deadline, and the Pentagon has established a military command structure based out of the facility. But with the Taliban gaining ground faster than expected, the U.S. might have to give up its plan to keep a military presence in the country.

The U.S. has stepped up airstrikes in recent weeks, but it has done little to slow the Taliban advances. The U.S. is now bombing equipment that it gave to the Afghan government that is being seized by the Taliban.

This article was originally featured at Antiwar.com and is republished with permission.

Biden’s Syria Policy: We’re Staying

As the U.S. is pulling troops out of Afghanistan and changing its mission in Iraq, a Biden administration official made it clear in comments to Politico that there are no plans to pull troops out of Syria.

“I don’t anticipate any changes right now to the mission or the footprint in Syria,” the official said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. There are currently about 900 U.S. troops in northeast Syria.

“In Syria, we’re supporting Syrian Democratic Forces in their fight against ISIS. That’s been quite successful, and that’s something that we’ll continue,” the official said.

While the US claims its presence in Syria is to help fight ISIS, the region where U.S. troops are deployed is where most of the country’s oil fields are. The occupation keeps the vital resource out of the hands of the Syrian government, which is part of Washington’s economic warfare against the country.

The U.S. maintains crushing economic sanctions on Syria. The sanctions specifically target the energy and construction sectors, making it difficult for the country to rebuild after 11 years of war and exacerbating the humanitarian crisis. According to the UN, the number of Syrians that are close to starvation is at 12.4 million, or 60 percent of the population.

On Monday, President Biden announced the U.S. “combat” mission in Iraq would be coming to an end, but U.S. troops will remain in the country. There are currently 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq, and it’s not clear if any will be removed as Washington changes its mission to a strictly advisory one. Multiple media reports cited anonymous U.S. officials who said changes to troop levels in Iraq would be minimal. One reason the U.S. wants to hold on to its bases in Iraq is that they support the occupation forces in Syria.

This article was originally featured at Antiwar.com and is republished with permission.

U.S. Ends ‘Combat Mission’ In Iraq, Continues Occupation

U.S. Ends ‘Combat Mission’ In Iraq, Continues Occupation

On Monday, President Biden and Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi agreed that the U.S. “combat” mission in Iraq will be over by the end of the year, but US troops will remain in the country in an advisory role.

“I think things are going well. Our role in Iraq will be…to be available to continue to train, to assist, to help, and to deal with ISIS—as it arrives. But we’re not going to be, by the end of the year, in a combat mission,” Biden told reporters alongside Kadhimi.

There are currently 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq under the umbrella of the U.S.-led anti-ISIS coalition. It’s not clear if any troops will be pulled out of the country when the U.S. formally switches roles. A drawdown is possible, but the announcement is being interpreted as a symbolic one by most US media outlets.

The U.S. plan to formally change its role in Iraq was first reported last week. On Saturday, a report from The New York Times cited unnamed Pentagon officials who said the U.S. will remove a “small but unspecified number of the 2,500 American forces currently stationed in Iraq.”

Kadhimi has been under intense domestic pressure to get U.S. forces to leave Iraq since he came into office in May 2020. Earlier that year, Iraq’s parliament voted unanimously to expel U.S. troops after Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis were killed by a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad.

More pressure has been on Kadhimi since Biden bombed Iraqi militias in Syria and Iraq last month. The U.S. carried out similar airstrikes in Syria in February. Considering the U.S. has been bombing Iraq for 30 years, there are many elements in the country that want U.S. troops to leave, and it is unlikely that changing the label of the occupation will placate them.

This article was orignally featured at Antiwar.com and is republished with permission.

President of Israel Labels Ben & Jerry’s ‘Economic Terrorists’

President of Israel Labels Ben & Jerry’s ‘Economic Terrorists’

On Wednesday, Israeli President Isaac Herzog called boycotts against Israel a “new kind of terrorism” after Ben & Jerry’s announced it will stop selling ice cream in occupied Palestinian territories at the end of 2022.

Israeli officials are outraged at the American company’s decision, and Herzog railed against the Boycott, Divestment, and sanctions movement (BDS) that promotes boycotts to hold Israel accountable for its occupation and war crimes against Palestinians.

“The boycott against Israel is a new type of terrorism — economic terrorism. Terrorism that seeks to harm Israeli citizens and the Israeli economy. We must oppose this boycott and terrorism of any kind,” Herzog said. “The BDS campaign does not pursue peace and seeks to undermine the very existence of the State of Israel. It is aiming its arrows at the Israeli economy.”

The Palestinian Authority, which welcomed Ben & Jerry’s decision, fired back at Herzog’s comments. “The occupation is terrorism itself. It is the worst kind of terrorism,” the PA Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Also on Wednesday, Israeli Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked slammed Ben & Jerry’s decision in a visit to the ice cream makers factory in Israel. “Ben & Jerry’s International chose to suck up to terrorist and antisemitic organizations instead of being faithful to its Israeli licensee,” she said.

Shaked said Israel will enlist pro-Israel groups in the U.S. to boycott the ice cream company. Over 30 U.S. states have passed anti-BDS laws, and Israeli officials are calling on those states to enforce them against Ben & Jerry’s.

The reaction by Israeli officials to the decision by Ben & Jerry’s makes it clear that Israel is threatened by the boycott movement. The view of Israel is changing in the U.S., and more momentum is behind BDS than ever before. A recent poll found that 25 percent of Jewish American voters consider Israel to be an apartheid state.

This article was originally featured at Antiwar.com and is republished with permission.

U.S. State Department Searching for Ways to ‘Support’ Cuban Protestors

U.S. State Department Searching for Ways to ‘Support’ Cuban Protestors

The State Department said Tuesday that the U.S. is looking at ways to “support” the Cuban people after anti-government demonstrators took to the streets of Cuba on Sunday.

In comments to reporters, State Department spokesman Ned Price downplayed the impact of the decades-old U.S. trade embargo on Cuba. “We are always considering options available to us that would allow us to support the Cuban people, to support their humanitarian needs, which are indeed profound. And they are profound because of not anything the United States has done, but from the actions and inactions, mismanagement, corruption of the Cuban regime,” he said.

President Biden has not moved to ease the sanctions on Cuba reimposed by the Trump administration. Included in those measures are restrictions on remittances, making it difficult for Cuban-Americans to send money home to their families. Companies like Western Union ended their money-sending service to Cuba due to the sanctions last November.

Price said the administration was still conducting a “review” of its Cuba policy when asked about the possibility of easing sanctions. When asked if he believes the remittance restrictions are contributing to the crisis in Cuba, Price said, “I have not seen a comprehensive study of it, so I’m not prepared to comment on that from here.”

Price went through the typical talking points of proponents of the embargo. He said there are exemptions for humanitarian goods. But study after study has shown, no matter how many exemptions, US economic sanctions still have a negative impact on the supply of food and medicine because it discourages companies from doing any business with the targeted countries.

In a sign that the Biden administration has no plans to change its Cuba policy, the U.S. voted against ending the embargo at the UN General Assembly. The U.S. and Israel were the only countries to vote against the resolution, demonstrating the widespread international support for lifting the blockade.

On Monday, President Biden released a statement throwing his support behind the protests. “We stand with the Cuban people and their clarion call for freedom and relief from the tragic grip of the pandemic and from the decades of repression and economic suffering to which they have been subjected by Cuba’s authoritarian regime,” he said.

This article was originally featured at Antiwar.com and is republished with permission.

What Does the Biden-Putin Summit Mean for Russian Relations Going Forward?

What Does the Biden-Putin Summit Mean for Russian Relations Going Forward?

President Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin wrapped up talks in Geneva on Wednesday. Both leaders had positive things to say about the meeting, but the tensions between the U.S. and Russia were on display during press conferences that followed.

World leaders typically hold joint press conferences after summits, but Biden and Putin spoke to the media on their own. Putin spoke with reporters first and described the meeting as “constructive.”

“There has been no hostility,” Putin said. “On the contrary, our meeting took place in a constructive spirit.” At the same time, Putin made it clear that Moscow blames US hostility for the sorry state of U.S.-Russia relations.

Asked if U.S.-Russia relations have hit rock bottom, Putin Said, “It’s hard to say at the moment because all steps in regard to the deterioration in the Russian-American relations were not initiated by us and they were taken by the American side.”

One constructive agreement Putin said he reached with Biden was to return ambassadors to the other nation’s capital. Russia recalled its U.S. ambassador in March, after an interview aired where Biden said Putin is a “killer” who has “no soul.” In April, the U.S. ambassador to Russia headed back to Washington after the US imposed fresh sanctions on Moscow and expelled Russian diplomats.

“As for the return of ambassadors to their places of work—of the U.S. ambassador to Moscow, and, respectively, of the Russian to Washington, we agreed that this issue is resolved,” Putin said in Geneva.

During his press conference, Biden portrayed the meeting as a necessary step for the “self-interest” of the U.S. “It was important to meet in person so there could be no mistake about or misrepresentations about what I wanted to communicate. I did what I came to do,” he said. “This is not about trust. This is about self-interest and verification of self-interest.”

Biden repeated the typical talking points about Russia’s alleged human rights violations and warned of “devastating” consequences if opposition figure Alexei Navalny were to die in prison. “I made it clear to him that I believed the consequences of that would be devastating for Russia,” Biden said.

Putin and Biden released a joint statement on “strategic stability” that discussed arms control between the two powers. The statement reads: “The recent extension of the New START Treaty exemplifies our commitment to nuclear arms control. Today, we reaffirm the principle that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Putin said he and Biden agreed to begin negotiations on the replacement of New START, which will expire in 2026. The joint statement said the U.S. and Russia agreed to begin nuclear talks in the “near future.”

Biden suggested future talks on “major strategic stability” but sounded less certain than Putin. He said the next few months will serve as a “test” to see if U.S.-Russia relations could improve.

“What is going to happen next? We’re going to be able to look back, look ahead, in three to six months and say, did the things we agreed to sit down and work out, did it work? Do we—are we closer to a major strategic stability talks and progress?” Biden said.

While Biden portrays Russia as the party that needs to take steps for better relations, the reality is, the US has been the aggressor. The question is if the U.S. will back off Russia and take steps towards arms control.

Biden said neither country has an interest in a “Cold War” and suggested Moscow might want better relations with the U.S. because of China. “Russia is in a very, very difficult spot right now. They are being squeezed by China. They want desperately to remain a major power,” he said.

This article was originally featured at Antiwar.com and is republished with permission.

House Members Demand Pentagon Give Israel an Extra Billion in Aid

House Members Demand Pentagon Give Israel an Extra Billion in Aid

A bipartisan group of House lawmakers sent a letter to the Pentagon on Wednesday urging Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to give the Israelis more military aid after Israel’s Gaza bombing campaign. The effort was led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), who was joined by 54 other members of the House.

The letter comes as Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz is traveling to Washington, where he is expected to ask the U.S. for an additional $1 billion in “emergency” military aid, on top of the $3.8 billion Israel receives annually.

The letter reads: “We write to express our strong support for the Biden Administration’s ironclad commitment to Israel’s safety and security, including replenishing Israel’s stock of interceptors for the Iron Dome missile defense system and other important matters. We ask that you continue urgently engaging with Israel on this request, and that you please report to Congress regarding Israel’s needs as soon as possible.”

“Replenishing” the Iron Dome missile defense system is likely the excuse the US will use to give Israel more money. In reality, Israel could easily spend the additional aid on more bombs to drop on Gaza.

In the letter, the lawmakers pointed out that after the 2014 Gaza War, when Israel killed over 2,000 Palestinians, the U.S. gave Israel $225 million in “emergency” aid. They said the agreement that gives Israel $3.8 billion each year, known as the Memorandum of Understanding, says the US could hand over more money “following a major armed conflict involving Israel.”

The lawmakers sounded eager to help the Pentagon fulfill Israel’s request for more aid. “If Israel requests additional assistance, as contemplated in the MOU, please work closely with Congress to expeditiously fulfill this request.”

This article was originally featured at Antiwar.com and is republished with permission.

Pin It on Pinterest