Resolution to block arms sale to Israel won’t pass the Senate

An effort by Sen. Bernie Sanders to block a US$735 million arms sale to Israel appears doomed in the Senate. His effort is largely symbolic, and short-lived, as he faces multiple headaches that essentially guarantee his resolution won’t pass the Senate. 

Midnight Friday is the end of the 15 days for this particular commercial sale to Israel, and the export license can be issued after that. It is usually done so pretty much automatically when time expires.

“Our goal must be to bring, to do everything possible, under very, very difficult circumstances to bring the Israelis and the Palestinians together,” Sanders said. “That is the best way we fight terrorism, not just give support to Israel. We need an even handed approach.”

Typically when lawmakers try to prevent an arms sale — something Congress has never accomplished through a joint resolution — they are able to force a vote, with passage requiring only a simple majority in the Senate by using the Arms Export Control Act to bypass the 60-vote filibuster.

That means Sanders would need 51 votes, or 50 votes and Vice President Harris to vote against the administration’s arms sale.

With deep Democratic divisions over what tactics the administration should deploy against Israel, a long-time ally that typically enjoys bipartisan support, Sanders does not appear to have a path to the votes he needs.

Among those opposing the resolution is Sen. Bob Menendez, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “I wouldn't be supporting it,” Menendez said.

Sen. Ben Cardin also said he isn’t on board, adding that he doesn’t think there are 50 votes in the Senate to try to block the sale. “I’m not supportive of his resolution,” Cardin said. “I have confidence that the Biden administration is handling it properly.”

Sen. Chris Murphy, who has used the same provision of the Arms Export Control Act to try to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia — said he was waiting to get briefed before taking a position on the sale to Israel.

Sen. Tim Kaine, a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, declined to take a position on Sanders’s resolution but signaled that he trusted the Biden administration’s approach. “The sale is going to take place a year from now ... I hope they are talking to them about the proposed use of these weapons,” Kaine said.

While a growing number of Democrats, including leadership in both chambers, publicly backed efforts for a cease-fire, calling off the arms sale didn’t garner nearly as much support.

Even Sen. Rand Paul, a libertarian-minded Republican who typically supports blocking arms sales, said he wouldn’t back the resolution. "I have been opposed in the past to arms sales to people who I think are acting in a way that's sort of an undemocratic way, a tyrannical way," Paul said. "I think what I see Israel doing is acting in self-defense."

Most arms sales are subject to a 30-day congressional review period during which lawmakers can attempt to block the deal if they want. But some close allies, including Israel, are afforded a 15-day review period, which runs out this week.

But a disagreement has cropped up over when the review window expires and, once it does, what it means for Sanders’s ability to force a vote. “I think procedurally he may be out of time,” Menendez said. “But I’m not sure, we’ll see what the parliamentarian has to say.”

The Senate aide and Cardin both said they expected that once the review window expires, Sanders’s resolution loses its privileged status that allows him to force a quick vote.

Under the fast-track procedures, Sanders still needs to let the resolution sit in the Foreign Relations Committee for 10 calendar days before he can try to bring it to the Senate floor. And the House is out of town until mid-June, well past the congressional review period.

What United States loves the most? Saudi Crown Prince or US$134 billion arms sale

At present, the United States and Saudi Arabia are experiencing a new era in their 76-year relationships. The priorities have changed after the release of the CIA findings. The report says Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) had ‘approved’ the 2018 murder of prominent Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi.

Historically, an American president has never cut off personal links to the Saudi heir apparent, who has often served as de facto ruler of the kingdom. But the White House declared his intention to make that very heir a ‘pariah’ in Washington and internationally as well.

The State Department has also set a new precedent by issuing visa restrictions on 76 Saudis believed to have been engaged in threatening dissidents overseas’ under a new ‘Khashoggi ban’ created in memory of the Saudi journalist murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018.

MBS has been deliberately spared from the Khashoggi ban, or any other sanction, to preserve a minimum communication and cooperation between the two governments. Former Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal noted, MBS is destined to live under a lifetime ‘stigma’ for his role in the affair. He is unlikely to be invited to the White House for years to come.     

Biden has said that from now on, he will only talk to King Salman, Mohammed’s father and the American President’s official counterpart. But the king is 85 years old and in failing health. When he dies, would Biden refuse to communicate with the kingdom’s new monarch? It will be an unprecedented situation in the history of US-Saudi relations dating back to World War II.

In the past, the personal relationship between the US President and reigning Saudi monarch has been a key determinant in setting both the tone and substance of ties between the two countries. At this point, the only senior US official authorized to talk to Crown Prince Mohammed, who is also minister of defense, is his counterpart, Secretary of Defense General Lloyd Austin III.

What impact the new Biden doctrine toward the crown prince will have on the overall US-Saudi relationship remains to be seen? It seems likely that the relationship will be reduced mostly to formal state-to-state transactions and to avoid an open break which neither side wants.

It is believed that the focal point of the relationship will remain the massive US arms sales to the Saudi kingdom and covert cooperation in demolishing Iran. Since 2010, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency has notified Congress of US$134 billion arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which has been the most important foreign market for the American defense industry for decades.

The Biden administration has reiterated its commitment to defending Saudi Arabia from foreign aggression and will continue to provide ‘defensive’ arms. However, it has already announced the suspension of ‘offensive’ weapons being used against Houthi rebels, who have seized control of most of Yemen. Forthcoming arms sales to the Kingdom are now under review, presumably to determine which are defensive and which are offensive.

Other than MBS, the most divisive and immediate issue in US-Saudi relations is how to deal with Iran, the kingdom’s arch rival for regional primacy. Iran has proven itself to be the most serious military threat after demonstrating its ability to amass drones and cruise missiles to knock out nearly half of the kingdom’s oil production for several weeks in September 2019.

Biden has begun charting a diplomacy initiative to entice Iran back into the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Acton (JCPOA). This will certainly lead to even more discord in the fraught US-Saudi relationship. The two countries no longer see the personal ties bonding US and Saudi leaders had enjoyed in the past.

United States: Boon or busted after Trump

As a student of Geopolitics in South Asia and MENA, I have repeatedly held the United States responsible for the turmoil in the region. I had even gone to the extent of saying that United States is the biggest warmonger. The super power loves to initiate a conflict that goes to the extent of anarchy and civil war.

This also invites other contenders to take part in proxy wars. While the sole purpose of United States is to sell its arms, it wants to keep others countries busy in fighting wars, rather than focusing on the welfare of their people. This also gives it a chance to keep the countries dependent on the World Bank and the IMF.

After having gone through what has been happening in the United States, after Donald Trump taking oath as new President, I am obliged to say that till recently the United States has been fanning hatred in the world, but now it is facing the same. Demonstration on the inaugural day and subsequent events clearly shows ‘Emergence of anarchy in the United States’. There are growing fears within the United States these demonstrations may turn violent.

Over the years the United States has been breading militants and using them in various countries to promote its agenda of keeping the countries in constant state of war. The worst examples are Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. The blood thirsty mercenaries from around the world have landed in these countries. It may also be said that these militants have been moved from one country to another only to promote sale of arms.

One often wonders how the rebel groups get money. Even a cursory look at Afghanistan and MENA shows that poppy and petrodollars are used for purchasing arms. Various oil fields have been taken over by rebels, who are selling oil to the developed nations. The center of drug has shifted from golden triangle to Afghanistan.

Spy agencies of the United States have been alleging Russia for rigging election. This on one hand proves the failure of these agencies and on the other hand breakout of anarchy in the country that has been creating turmoil around the world.

Over the years, United States has been ringing alarm of nuclear assets going into the control of militants in various countries. One may ask the same question, will nuclear assets of United States be in safe hands, if the present demonstrations turn violent?