Statement AI Analysis

Statement AI Summary:

The speaker, a U.S. Senator, discusses the importance of unwavering U.S. support for allies Israel and Ukraine against their respective adversaries, emphasizing military assistance and strategic deterrence. He criticizes past administrations and opposing political views for perceived weak commitment and appeasement, arguing that strong defense spending and security partnerships are vital to counter threats from Iran, Russia, and others, maintain global stability, and affirm U.S. leadership internationally. He advocates for continued and increased military support for Ukraine and Israel, underscoring the strategic benefits and risks of failing to do so.

Statement AI Bias Category on Economy and Jobs:

Right-Leaning

Bias of All Statements by Mitch McConnell on Economy and Jobs:

Statement AI Categories:

Economy and Jobs, Foreign Policy, National Security and Counterterrorism, Congressional Procedure, Other

Date:

06-24-2025

Pages In PDF Link That Have Statement:

S3501-S3502

Congressional Record PDF:

Actual Statement Made In Congress:

If the member made multiple statements on that day, they were analyzed and accumulated together.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, when Iran's proxies launched a full- scale war on Israel, October 7, 2023, President Biden pledged an unwavering commitment to Israel's security. That was the right message in the moment. But as I warned publicly at the time, Israel needed more than just rhetorical solidarity. Like Ukraine, Israel needed precious time, space to maneuver, and materiel support to defeat a shared enemy. And yet, as in Ukraine, America's commitment has indeed wavered. Our support has not been ironclad. Instead, under the previous administration, American support was delayed, restricted, and paired with attempts to micromanage Israel's operations and even interfere with Israeli politics. And at every turn, the progressive left and isolationist right hyperventilated about the specter of so-called forever war. Fortunately, Israel held its ground. Israelis certainly weren't enthused about a ground war in Gaza. Their leaders knew that war would be difficult. But they knew it was unavoidable so long as Hamas terrorists still refused to release its hostages. They also knew lasting security meant changing Iran's calculus, not just responding to attacks from proxies. So Israel decided to turn Iran's terrorist assets into liabilities. Despite the pearl-clutching here in Washington, our allies simultaneously decapitated Hezbollah and crippled Hamas. Their bold operations created a new opportunity for Lebanon to claw back its sovereignty from a terrorist state within a state. Meanwhile, the collapse of the brutal Assad regime in Syria brought down a Russian vassal and Iran's favorite corridor of weapons and terrorist finance. These are the circumstances President Trump inherited. What to do with them has been the subject of quite some debate. Some of his advisers and supporters came with Obama-Biden-era talking points, ready to urge him to continue his predecessor's policy of constraining Israel. Some had argued publicly that America had no vital or existential interests in the Middle East or claimed the region was a distraction from other priorities. They warned of forever war. Some seemed to push for nuclear negotiations with parameters eerily similar to the nuclear deal the President withdrew from his first term. They even proposed Iran could keep enriching uranium, until the President, rightly, correctly, quashed that idea. These mixed messages emboldened Iran and its proxies. After all, why give up if administration officials saw the Middle East as little more than a distraction or if they seem as fearful of restoring deterrence as the previous guys? So Hamas kept holding hostages. The Houthis kept targeting Israel and Red Sea commerce. And the Islamic Republic kept marching toward a nuclear weapon. And in response, Israel took the next logical step to restore deterrence. Once again, innovative and decisive strikes destroyed Iran's air defenses and imposed immediate--immediate--costs on Tehran. Leaders across Israel's politics stood united behind the daring operations. Ah, but here in America, the same restrainers, anti-Israel progressives, and self-proclaimed realists warned again of regional conflagration if the President intervened alongside or even supported Israel's strikes. The President's own--his own--Director of National Intelligence traveled to Hiroshima to record a bizarre video, not as a warning against Tehran's nuclear ambitions but presumably against American or Israeli operations to blunt them. Now, fortunately, the President rejected the pleas of appeasers and isolationists. The strikes he ordered dealt a massive blow to Iran's nuclear program, bolstered American credibility, and strengthened U.S. and Israel leverage to end Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support for terrorism for good. Thanks to Israel's historic efforts for more than a year and a half, Iran's ability to threaten regional stability is massively degraded. Not since before the Islamic Revolution has there been such an opportunity for America, Israel, and our Arab partners to reset regional dynamics on such favorable terms. Achieving it has required no large-scale deployment of U.S. ground forces. It required only supporting our friends. Israel is a close ally and a strategic asset, not a liability. And the strategic return on our investment in assisting Israel is incalculable. Standing with our Israeli friends offers a powerful lesson about American leadership, the value of alliances and partnerships, and the real nature of peace through strength. And this lesson extends far, far beyond the Middle East. If America refuses to apply it elsewhere--like Ukraine--we do so at grave risk to our own interests. But that is exactly what some in Washington seem to be doing. Congress recently learned that a senior DOD official conducted a review of DOD security assistance efforts and--listen to this-- concluded that the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, among other programs, was wasteful. This is a Republican administration panning a program created by the Republican Congress in 2015 to counter President Obama's toothless response to Russia's initial invasion of Ukraine. I would like to see the analysis behind the administration's decision to zero out USAI in its fiscal 2026 request. I would like to hear them try to explain away the massive return on investment of America's security assistance to Ukraine and the previous lessons we have learned from our Ukrainian partners. The Secretary of the Army has, rightly, called Ukraine--listen to this--``the Silicon Valley of warfare.'' Do his colleagues at the Pentagon think this assessment is wrong or do they just not think access to cutting-edge, modern combat is valuable? Well, here is the truth: USAI and other security efforts have helped us, measurably, address shortcomings in strategy, capabilities, and production capacity that would have gone ignored until it was too late. It is an inconvenient reality for isolationists and restrainers, but for a tiny percent--a tiny percent--of our defense budget, we helped a smaller military resist invasion by a vastly larger one and degrade a major U.S. adversary. As with Israel, Ukraine is fighting an adversary of the United States. Our support does not entangle us in a far-off foreign conflict. For Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, America is the main enemy, the Great Satan. If these adversaries beat our friends, the threat to America becomes a thousand times greater. We should be grateful for friends so willing to defend our collective interests against common folks. Partnership with Ukraine is teaching us what modern warfare could mean for U.S. forces when they do face direct conflict. It has tested our assumptions about munitions inventories, expenditure rates, electronic warfare, and the duration of conflict. Without Ukraine's experience with U.S. weapons, we would have been surprised to find some advanced systems quickly rendered inoperable on future battlefields. The money we invest in USAI on weapons for Ukraine expands our own production capacity in the process and will improve the quality of our own munitions. Supplemental appropriations on Ukraine and Israel, in turn, backfill our own stocks with brand new capabilities--not just 155-mm rounds but air defenses and long-range fires, with specific investment in solid rocket motors. These investments help us prepare for conflict in the Indo-Pacific, and production would be slower in the absence of our partnership with Ukraine. Not doing more to address our growing defense needs isn't a failure of foresight. It is a failure of political will. Everyone wants to see an end to Russia's war in Ukraine, but the price of peace matters. If we want enduring stability in Europe, we can't fall for an illusory peace. We should know enough history not to dismiss this as merely ``a quarrel in a faraway country, between two people of whom we no nothing.'' It is a major war of conquest in Europe--the most significant since the days of Nazi Germany--and allies and adversaries half a world away are watching it closely for clues about America's resolve. Certainly, Europe's deepening commitments to collective defense will make real peace more enforceable. The President's insistence has driven much of this progress. Putin's brutality has reinforced it. Since 2022, our European NATO allies have made historic--historic-- investments in defense, often buying from us. Many are preparing to make even larger commitments at this week's NATO summit. All of that is good news. But we can't expect allies to continue signing up for 3.5 and 5 percent commitments if America insists on falling further behind. Likewise, we can't expect Putin to end his aggression if he thinks America's abandonment of Ukraine is just a matter of time. And we can't expect anyone to take America's threats and commitments seriously if we are content to let our own strength atrophy. A base budget request that cuts defense spending in real terms doesn't show Moscow we are serious, let alone Beijing. Leading from behind would be bad enough, but this is just plain falling behind. The strongest deterrence is denying an adversary's objectives through military means. Israel is restoring this deterrence in the Middle East. Ukraine is achieving it by holding its own against Russia, but it needs help. Recently, I have asked administration officials simple questions, like: Who is the aggressor in the conflict? The answer is pretty obvious. But a second, equally simple question seems to actually trip them up: Who do we want to win? Who do we want to win? The President made the right call to stand with Israel. I hope he will also decide to stand with Ukraine, prevent Russian victory, and start reversing a dangerous downward trend in our defense budgets. I hope he will recognize Russia's attempt to ``tap him along'' for what it is. Putin is getting mixed messages from us. He thinks he has time. He believes the West is weak and divided. But the President, at very little cost, can shatter that illusion. It is time to impose sanctions, raise the price of Russia's aggression, redouble security assistance to Ukraine, and drive the Kremlin to seek peace. It is time for deterrence through denial. There is no surer path to a just and enduring peace, no better way to demonstrate that peace through strength actually means something, no clearer sign to allies and adversaries watching closely, from the Western Hemisphere to the Indo-Pacific, that America still has the will to lead. I yield the floor.

AI summary and categorization done by an OpenAI GPT model. For more information see: Editorial and Method