Special Investigations

Press Freedom Defense Fund

When Anti-War Candidates Become War-Monger Presidents

Matt Duss, former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders, on how Democrats can win on an anti-war platform and bring about real change.

Sen. Bernie Sanders forced a vote on Wednesday to block the sales of bombs and bulldozers to Israel. The resolutions failed mostly along party lines with a handful of defections to the Republican side, but a record number of Democrats voted against sending weapons to Israel.  

“A supermajority of Democrats oppose this war, are generally against America’s global military interventions,” former Sanders foreign policy adviser Matt Duss tells The Intercept Briefing. Yet Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., joined 11 Democrats in voting against the measure to block the sale of 1,000-pound bombs to Israel, and seven Democrats against the sale of bulldozers used in Israel’s military occupations.

“We do have a Democratic Party leadership that still is part of this very small — and thankfully dwindling, though not fast enough — hawkish faction that is wedded to this idea of American global military domination,” says Duss.

This week on the podcast, Duss speaks to host Akela Lacy about how Democrats should use the overwhelming unpopularity of the war to push an anti-war agenda that brings about real change. 

“There’s a real constituency here for this message,” says Duss, “We need a foreign policy for this era that is based around building peace rather than making war, that is focused on foreign policy that benefits American communities and American workers, but also does not export insecurity and poverty onto others in the world. And I think this is a really opportune moment for it.”

The watershed moment in the Senate came against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s hyper-aggressive military adventurism.

“My concern about blaming this all on Israel is that it lets Washington off the hook,” says Duss. “We have a foreign policy establishment that is addicted to militarism, that is addicted to war, who often work at think tanks that are largely funded by the military–industrial complex. They are funded by weapons manufacturers. We have a political class that is really deeply committed to an almost religious degree to American primacy in the world, to American global hegemony. Which means that we are up in everyone’s business all over the place all the time.”

“This Iran war is the most egregious and horrible expression of trends in our foreign policy that have been building for a long time, so are these boat strikes,” he says, referring to the Trump administration’s ongoing assassinations of alleged drug traffickers. “We’ve been killing people with flying robots in the Middle East and Africa and elsewhere for decades now.”

Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you listen.

Akela Lacy: Welcome to The Intercept Briefing. I’m Akela Lacy, senior politics reporter for The Intercept.

Ali Gharib: And I’m Ali Gharib, a senior editor at The Intercept.

AL: We are well over a month into the U.S.-Israel war on Iran and about a week into a ceasefire that, depending on which side you’re listening to, has either held or not held. Ali, walk us through the latest developments. What’s the status of this war?

AG: When the talks broke down over the weekend, a lot of bluster started to be exchanged between Iran and the U.S. The U.S. imposed its own blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, which is almost, like, comically perfect if it wasn’t so tragic — that the U.S. started this war for unclear reasons, and then Iran punished the U.S. and the world by closing the Strait of Hormuz. Then the U.S. made the war about opening the Strait of Hormuz. Iran agreed to do that under certain conditions, and the U.S. has rejected Iran’s terms, though, as the U.S. tells it, Iran rejected their terms.

But either way, we came to an impasse. And now it is the U.S. that is blocking the Strait of Hormuz. So that’s the Kafkaesque state of affairs in the straits these days.

But for the moment, the ceasefire is holding. The U.S. and its allies — Israel — are not, so far, attacking Iran, and Iran has not been launching weapons at Israel and the U.S.’s Gulf allies and U.S. military assets. 

One of the most interesting things about the state of the ceasefire right now is that even though the U.S. imposed this “blockade” — I’m doing air quotes now — on Iranian ports, the Iranians have not forced the issue when the U.S. has ordered ships coming from Iranian ports to turn around. They have complied, and Iran has not been firing on U.S. naval assets in the strait. So far, everybody is complying. There was word from thinly sourced reporting that our colleague at CNN, Leila Gharagozlou — who, full disclosure, also happens to be my cousin — had mentioned that there had been a U.S. request to Iran, according to the Iranians, for another round of talks coming up.

So diplomacy may indeed be proceeding. We don’t really know, but that’s the state of things right now is that — and I think we can all be thankful for it — is that there’s a lot of bluster, there’s a lot of talk about “They won’t accept our terms, and it’s gonna be bad for them,” on both sides. But so far, there’s been no major escalations in the fighting.

AL: Our listeners know that Israel’s bombing campaign in Lebanon and Gaza is powered by U.S. money and weapons. And there was a historic vote in the Senate on Wednesday when Sen. Bernie Sanders forced a vote to block more than $450 million in sales of weapons and bombs to Israel.

This is the latest in a series of votes that Sanders has introduced to block these kinds of weapon sales to Israel. The latest vote failed, as did the previous two in April and July of last year. But just as the last vote, a historic number of senators voted for this measure. The last vote to block these weapon sales to Israel in July had a record number of senators vote for it, 27.

The Dam Breaks: Democratic Senators Overwhelmingly Reject Arms Sales to Israel

But the vote on Wednesday saw an even greater number of senators move to support this bill, bringing the total to 36. That includes Sanders and another independent senator, Angus King. Zero Republicans voted for this measure. But what’s notable here is that several people who voted either against the last iteration of this resolution, the joint resolution of disapproval, or the previous one, either voted against it or voted present.

Several of the senators who voted against it or voted present have voted for this bill now. This is part of what Sen. Sanders said after the vote is a major shift among Democrats on the topic of Israel and U.S. military support for Israel, particularly during the genocide in Gaza, but also as the war on Iran continues to escalate, and both Republicans and Democrats face increasing criticism over the U.S. entanglement in this war side by side with Israel.

I also want to note several notable Democrats who did sign on to this bill: Cory Booker, who has been a longtime ally of AIPAC, who’s recently sworn off AIPAC money in his upcoming Senate race as part of a broader pledge to reject corporate PAC money. John Hickenlooper, who is facing a progressive challenger who said that she won’t send money to Israel while it’s committing genocide in Gaza. Adam Schiff, who previously voted no on this. Elissa Slotkin, who also previously voted no on this.

Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly were some of the names who stood out to me here. With the exception of Gallego, who started out as a progressive and tacked pretty moderate during his Senate race, these are the bread and butter of the centrists of the Democratic Party. We’re talking about Adam Schiff, Elissa Slotkin, Michael Bennet of Colorado.

AG: Mark Kelly, I think, was a really telling one because he has been such a staunch supporter of Israel and, I think, has the ambitions and maybe also the profile that makes him more viable — and just on a personal judgment level is less silly than the Cory Bookers of the world.

AL: Less silly. He’s an astronaut, he can’t be silly. [Laughs.]

AG: [Laughs.] Well, Kelly is a guy who has voted no on these resolutions again and again and again. Here’s a guy — staunch supporter of Israel — he hasn’t previously voted for any of these resolutions before, and now he is. His logic was interesting because he came out and said that, I am a supporter of Israel, and this is our ally, and we need to be helping them. But we also have to recognize that what’s going on right now in the Middle East is not normal. His phrase was, “Not business as usual.” And he said, “It’s not making us safer,” and the U.S. and Israel are in this war, and there’s no end in sight. That’s what seemed to have turned him against the [bombs and bulldozers].

And I think that coming from maybe one of the more legit presidential contenders in Capitol Hill is pretty significant, Akela.

AL: Yes, I agree. So this vote was broken up into two measures: one which was to block the sale of bombs, the other which was to block the sale of bulldozers, which garnered more support. Ali, tell us about that.

AG: This one, to me, was really interesting. Forty Democrats voted for this. I mean, that is about 80 percent of the Democrats in the Senate. That’s a remarkable number. Maybe not as remarkable as the shift to 36 senators on the bombs. It’s significant nonetheless. What was really interesting here, and our colleague Matt Sledge had reported about this in his article, was that it seemed like these Democrats had an easier time voting against bulldozers than voting against bombs, which doesn’t make sense at first blush.

But how we see the bulldozers actually work in practical application — in southern Lebanon today, in the occupation in general, in the efforts to annex the West Bank — has been to use it to destroy villages and homes and change the realities on the ground to create Israel hegemony over what’s left of the rubble of Palestinian and, more recently, Lebanese villages.

Israeli Forces Keep Killing Americans While U.S. Officials Give Them a Pass

So that, to me, was an interesting development, because having so many of the Democrats overwhelmingly oppose these things that I think that there is for, maybe not by the twisted logic of an AIPAC-infused Capitol Hill, but to the wider world, you’re like, “Wait a second. Bulldozers?” And actually, these are weapons of occupation and annexation and the apartheid system in Israel.

AL: It speaks to the thinking or the process by which senators are able to talk themselves out of the line that they previously walked on what is considered self-defense for Israel. It’s easier to say, “Yeah, we support an Iron Dome” than “We support bulldozers that we’re seeing used to raze people’s homes and buildings.”

AG: In some ways, it is a much more clear war crime to be razing entire villages than dropping bombs. The Israelis, the Americans, everybody always comes up with these bullshit excuses that are like, “Oh, they were targeting military assets,” and this whole cockamamie collateral damage argument and stuff.

There’s no dispute that when Israel razes an entire village on the Lebanese border — and they said they were going to do this — that is a prima facie war crime. That’s what it is. 

“In some ways, it is a much more clear war crime to be razing entire villages than dropping bombs.”

“In some ways, it is a much more clear war crime to be razing entire villages than dropping bombs.”

So even though that’s not what Capitol Hill is saying, what Democrats on Capitol Hill are saying, when they voted for this resolution; it’s just interesting to me that that’s the avenue that we’re starting to go down now, even on Capitol Hill.

AL: We talk about all of this and more in today’s episode with Matt Duss, the executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who introduced the measures to block the bombs and bulldozers that we’ve been discussing. Duss was also the former president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace and a national security and international policy analyst at the Center for American Progress.

AG: I, for one, am really eager to hear this conversation. Thanks, Akela.

Matt, welcome to “The Intercept Briefing.”

Matt Duss: Thank you. Great to be with you.

AL: Over the weekend, Vice President JD Vance left negotiations he was leading to end the war in Iran and open the Strait of Hormuz without a deal. Talks fell apart over U.S. demands that Iran suspend uranium enrichment for 20 years; Iran agreed to five. For context, former President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran — that Trump proudly shredded in his first term — took nearly two years to negotiate.

To start, Matt, can you bring us up to speed? What is the latest on this war that the U.S. provoked and is now trying to find a way out of?

MD: We’re about a month and a half into this war that began at the very end of February, launched by the United States and Israel together. I think that is notable, as opposed to last June’s so-called 12-Day War, which was begun by Israel bombing Iran. Then days later, the U.S. joined in, dropping its biggest........

© The Intercept