Photo from Hossein Beris/Middle East Images/Middle East Images via AFP.
A few weeks ago, both the House of Representatives and the Senate rejected a resolution to curb the United States’ attacks in Iran. Unlike other high profile issues, the rejection was bipartisan with both Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate voting it down. This vote came in spite of public opinion, with nearly 60% of Americans disapproving of US involvement in Iran.
Congress was seeking to intervene in the recent conflict. On February 28th, the US and Israel launched airstrikes throughout Iran, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of civilians as well as top officials, including Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei.
The Trump administration has defended their attacks through a myriad of reasons. In early March, the President claimed that the US was seeking to stop Iran’s proxy groups. He also said that the attacks were necessary to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, prevent Iran from attacking the US, and achieve other stated goals.
Despite the shifting narrative, the Trump administration initially claimed that they engaged with Iran because of pressure from Israel. That justification resulted in many Americans questioning why the US is acting at the direction of Israel and why Congress is unwilling to intervene, despite public opinion. To answer that question, an understanding of the Israel lobby is necessary.
The primary body lobbying for strong American-Israeli relations is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC advocates for maintaining and strengthening the United States’ relationship with Israel by supporting pro-Israel Congressional candidates. Their organization consists of several political action committees (PACs) that contribute directly to candidates as well as a super PAC that is responsible for most of their lobbying efforts. In contrast to AIPAC’s PACs, their super PAC—the United Democracy Project—is able to spend an unlimited amount of money to support pro-Israel candidates.
Unlike other lobbying groups, though, AIPAC does not just fund Congressional candidates who hold favorable positions. Instead, it takes a retaliatory approach. AIPAC strategically funds candidates who have the potential to unseat members of Congress who disagree with AIPAC’s mission. On their website, they openly boast having defeated 24 candidates who failed to demonstrate a sufficient level of support for Israel.
These efforts to unseat members of Congress have largely targeted progressive representatives, including Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman. Both Bush and Bowman were staunch critics of Israel and its activities in the Middle East. In 2024, AIPAC spent $8 million in Bush’s primary and over $20 million in Bowman’s. Neither Bush nor Jamaa Bowman were able to counter AIPAC’s spending, which many believe was a critical factor in their defeat.
AIPAC’s deep pockets enable it to spend heavily, as it did in Bush’s and Bowman’s primaries. The organization is funded by dozens of billionaires and business executives who have collectively contributed millions of dollars. As a result, it was able to spend $50.9 million in the 2022 election, over $100 million in 2024 and has the resources to spend similar amounts in 2026 primaries and the general election.
Given AIPAC’s history and resources, Congress members have good reason to fear it, especially over issues involving Iran.
AIPAC lists weakening Iran and curbing their efforts to develop nuclear weapons as one of its primary policy goals. As such, they were likely closely monitoring the recent vote over whether to constrain US involvement in Iran. With AIPAC watching, members of Congress had a strong incentive to reject the resolution against US military action, regardless of public opinion.
For members of Congress who defy AIPAC, they can expect to be challenged in upcoming elections, like Bush and Bowman, regardless of party affiliation. Since May of 2024, AIPAC has targeted Thomas Massie, the Republican sponsor of the resolution to constrain US involvement in Iran, by spending over $300,000 on advertisements against him. Some have also predicted that AIPAC will further challenge Massie leading up to his primary in May.
With AIPAC signaling it is willing to challenge members of Congress over issues closely related to Iran, their involvement appears to be a key reason for the failure of the resolution. To prevent a strong challenger, members of Congress were incentivized to vote against the resolution. As a result, AIPAC is at least partially responsible for the bill’s failure.
• • •
Staten Rector is the President of the Policy and Law Review. He is a junior, studying Economics and Politics as well as Ethics, History, and Public Policy.
Leave a Reply