Washington, D.C. — Senator Ted Budd (R-NC) has written an opinion piece for the Washington Examiner slamming the Biden administration’s appeasement towards Iran in the wake of an Iranian-backed drone attack that killed three U.S. servicemembers in Jordan.
Highlights:
“There are core U.S. national interests at stake, not least of which is maintaining the free flow of energy and trade to world markets, as well as counterterrorism.”
“Some of my colleagues have called for directly attacking targets inside Iran, which is not necessary to achieve our immediate goals at this time.”
“Others have called for removing all U.S. forces from the region, believing this would reduce the risk of escalation or a regional war. But that would only embolden Iran and its proxies, further threaten Israel’s existence, and cede two of the world’s most important waterways, the Suez Canal and Strait of Hormuz, to terrorists and their supporters in Tehran.”
“It’s time for a change in policy and to respond to Iran and its proxies with strength. Weakness only invites further aggression from our adversaries. Former President Donald Trump understood this. That’s why he ordered the January 2020 drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force. After an initial response from Iran, attacks against U.S. forces in the region drastically decreased. That’s deterrence.”
“Only a similar response that shows U.S. willingness to impose direct costs on Iranian interests and those Guard leaders responsible for enabling proxy attacks will result in much-needed change. Without such a response, the risk of escalation only increases.”
Read the full op-ed HERE or below:
Appeasement toward Iran must end
By Sen. Ted Budd
January 31, 2024 09:23 AM
Over the weekend, three U.S. service members were killed and dozens were injured in a drone attack against a base supporting regional counterterrorism operations in Jordan. We are lucky that more troops have not been killed in the more than 165 Iranian-backed proxy attacks against U.S. forces in the Middle East since Oct. 7. These numbers don’t even consider the barrage of missiles and drones launched by the Houthis at commercial and military vessels in the Red Sea.
The Biden administration’s failure to maintain and then reassert deterrence against Iran and its terrorist proxies is a direct result of President Joe Biden’s policies of appeasement toward Iran. From day one, for example, the president has sought to reenter the Obama-era nuclear deal. Even as the regime’s aggression has escalated, this president has continued a kid-glove treatment against the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism in a desperate hope to secure a deal.
Further appeasement or a weak response to this latest attack would only further ratchet up the danger to U.S. troops.
Iran has one goal: pushing the United States out of the Middle East in a bid for regional hegemony. We can’t let that happen.
There are core U.S. national interests at stake, not least of which is maintaining the free flow of energy and trade to world markets, as well as counterterrorism. The U.S. also has an interest in defending Israel, one of our closest allies and a critical defense cooperation partner that is vital to containing a nuclear-obsessed Iran.
While the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are long over, there are still 45,000 U.S. troops based across the Middle East, including nearly 3,000 in Jordan, 2,500 in Iraq, and 900 in Syria. Many Americans likely wonder why we maintain such a large troop presence in the region despite the end of the “forever wars.” The answer is simple — it’s in the national interest to continue training, advising, and assisting partners, as well as maintaining our own ability to eliminate terrorist threats before they’re able to metastasize and directly threaten the U.S. homeland.
Further, the U.S. is the world’s largest and strongest economy — but not by accident. We are no doubt blessed with immense natural resources and protected by two oceans. Despite this, our economy is still largely dependent on international trade. Attacks against shipping in the Red Sea directly threaten the free flow of goods and have reached an estimated economic impact of more than $250 million per day. These costs have yet to be truly felt at home or abroad.
There is not currently, though there should be, unanimity on Capitol Hill regarding how to respond to Iran and its proxies. Some of my colleagues have called for directly attacking targets inside Iran, which is not necessary to achieve our immediate goals at this time. Others have called for removing all U.S. forces from the region, believing this would reduce the risk of escalation or a regional war. But that would only embolden Iran and its proxies, further threaten Israel’s existence, and cede two of the world’s most important waterways, the Suez Canal and Strait of Hormuz, to terrorists and their supporters in Tehran.
Biden has vowed to retaliate “at a time and place of our choosing” for the attacks that killed U.S. service members. It was only a few days ago, however, that Biden admitted in an exchange with reporters that the minimal strikes he’s ordered against the Houthis were not working to stop attacks against global shipping in the Red Sea but that he’d continue them anyway.
It’s time for a change in policy and to respond to Iran and its proxies with strength.
Weakness only invites further aggression from our adversaries. Former President Donald Trump understood this. That’s why he ordered the January 2020 drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force. After an initial response from Iran, attacks against U.S. forces in the region drastically decreased. That’s deterrence.
Soleimani’s Quds Force replacement and other senior Guard leaders traveling and planning attacks in the Middle East should be on notice — show your face and forfeit your life.
Only a similar response that shows U.S. willingness to impose direct costs on Iranian interests and those Guard leaders responsible for enabling proxy attacks will result in much-needed change. Without such a response, the risk of escalation only increases.
###
