Shifting priorities on the Hill may threaten US posture abroad

On September 23, the House voted to approve the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the fiscal year 2022. Although Democrats veered to cut defense spending, the chamber authorized a total of $768 billion, a boost for the National Defense Strategy. On the same day, Democrats passed stand-alone legislation to provide $1 billion to support Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system following its exclusion from a stopgap bill earlier in the week. Despite the ultimate passing of both Iron Dome funding and the NDAA in the House, significant obstacles along the way symbolize a shifting influence within the Democratic party that should not be overlooked.

Shortly after far-left progressives pressured their party to nix a resolution to provide funding for Israel’s missile air defense system on September 22, leaders in the House supported a measure to grant U.S. assistance to militia groups in Iraq with known ties to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The resolution, authored by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Cal), was intended to assist Christian communities in Northern Iraq vulnerable to attacks by the Islamic State. However, if passed, Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) would be tasked with resettling the religious minorities. PMU groups were initially created to aid in the fight against ISIS, but have been largely warped into lawless units guided by the Iranian regime and its interests. PMU militias are responsible for dozens of rocket and drone attacks that have targeted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Baghdad. Although the amendment was eventually edited to remove any reference to the PMU following pushback from the GOP, the fact it materialized at all is truly alarming.

While some Democrats were backing the inclusion of funding for Iraqi militias in the NDAA, other party members were bashing the passing of legislation that provides funds for Israel’s Iron Dome. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich) denounced granting U.S. aid to the defense system and labeled Israel “an apartheid regime.” Tlaib and her far-left counterparts have been accused of spewing anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment in the past. Her vehement refusal to support an air defense system that saved hundreds of thousands of civilian lives in the recent Hamas-Israel conflict is astounding. Yet, her rhetoric does not stand alone in the Democratic party.

After voting against the stand-alone Iron Dome resolution, Tlaib stated that she “will not support an effort to enable war crimes and human rights abuses and violence,” and added that the House “cannot be talking only about Israelis’ need for safety at a time when Palestinians are living under a violent apartheid system.” The Iron Dome is purely a defense system that can effectively thwart rocket and missile attacks with a 90% success rate. If the Iron Dome did not exist and rocket attacks launched directly at Israeli cities went unhindered, thousands of civilians would be at risk. Israel would have an obligation to respond to attacks that cause higher rates of casualties with more aggression, which would ultimately lead to more deaths. Without the Iron Dome, the lives of Palestinians and Israelis would be at greater risk.

Just a few years ago it would have been unfathomable to imagine U.S. elected representatives debating whether or not to provide funding to Israel or Iranian-backed militants. Today, it is a reality. If progressives continue to gain momentum and influence within the Democratic party at this rate, America’s reliability and posture in the Middle East is bound to suffer.