The Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act of 2019 is a proposed law that aimed to boost U.S. security ties with key Middle Eastern allies like Israel and Jordan. It also sought to impose sanctions on Syria and address the controversial Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
What This Bill Does
This bill is a mix of four different policies aimed at strengthening U.S. relationships and security in the Middle East. First, it planned to continue military support to Israel by providing financial aid and allowing the transfer of advanced weapons. It also encouraged cooperation in space exploration and technology development to counter threats like drones.
Next, the bill extended special defense agreements with Jordan, making it easier for the U.S. to send military equipment there. It also asked for a study on the benefits of creating a fund to boost private investment in Jordan.
The bill included sanctions against Syria, targeting those who support the Syrian government, including individuals and companies from Russia and Iran. These sanctions aimed to cut off financial support to the Syrian regime but allowed exceptions for humanitarian aid.
Lastly, the bill addressed the BDS movement by allowing U.S. states and local governments to divest from companies that boycott Israel. This part of the bill aimed to support Israel by discouraging economic actions against it.
Why It Matters
This bill could have significant impacts on both the U.S. and the Middle East. For Israel and Jordan, it meant continued military and economic support, which could help them maintain security and stability in a volatile region. For Syria, the sanctions aimed to pressure the government and its allies to change their behavior.
For Americans, the bill's provisions could affect how tax dollars are spent, as military aid and sanctions enforcement require funding. It also touches on issues of free speech and political expression, as the BDS provisions involve state decisions on investments based on political stances.
Key Facts
- Cost/Budget Impact: The bill's financial impact was not specifically detailed, but it involves significant military aid and sanctions enforcement costs.
- Timeline for Implementation: Military financing to Israel was planned through 2028, with other provisions having different timelines.
- Number of People Affected: Directly impacts Israel, Jordan, and entities involved in BDS; indirectly affects U.S. taxpayers and Middle Eastern businesses.
- Key Dates: Introduced on January 3, 2019, passed the Senate on February 5, 2019, but stalled in the House on February 6, 2019.
- Status: The bill did not become law and is no longer active, though similar provisions may appear in other legislation.
- BDS Provisions: Mark a shift by allowing states to make investment decisions based on foreign policy considerations.
- Historical Context: The bill was part of broader U.S. efforts to address Middle East security challenges during the 116th Congress.
Arguments in Support
- Strengthening Alliances: Supporters argue that the bill reinforces U.S. alliances with Israel and Jordan, which are crucial for regional stability.
- Counterterrorism Efforts: By maintaining military support, the bill aims to help defeat terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda.
- Pressure on Syria: Sanctions are seen as a tool to weaken the Syrian regime and its allies, pushing for accountability and change.
- State Investment Authority: The BDS provisions allow states to make investment decisions that align with their foreign policy views.
Arguments in Opposition
- Free Speech Concerns: Critics argue that the BDS provisions could infringe on free speech and political expression rights.
- Cost of Military Aid: Some question whether the U.S. should prioritize military aid abroad when facing domestic budget challenges.
- Effectiveness of Sanctions: Skeptics doubt that unilateral sanctions on Syria will be effective without international cooperation.
- Potential for Increased Tensions: There's concern that increased military aid could escalate conflicts rather than resolve them.