Pro-Israel congressman accuses Tel Aviv of ‘mocking' Trump with ‘suicidal' strikes in Syria
By Morgan Phillips
Published July 18, 2025
EXCLUSIVE: In a rare public rebuke of Israeli military action, Rep. Joe Wilson, R‑S.C., issued a harsh warning that recent airstrikes on Syria are "suicidal" for Tel Aviv.
"I'm the co‑chair of the Israel caucus and a lifelong supporter of the State of Israel," Wilson told Fox News Digital in an emotional phone call, "I am heartsick."
He said the strikes on Syria's military headquarters were "insulting and mocking to President [Donald] Trump," who just recently lifted sanctions on Syria after meeting with leader Ahmed al-Sharaa to give Damascus a "chance" at economic prosperity after the fall of Bashar al-Assad.
Wilson said he had a tense phone call with Ambassador Yechiel Leiter, urging him to share his warning back home that Israel must stop the strikes.
RUBIO SAYS ISRAEL STRIKE ON SYRIAN MILITARY HEADQUARTERS 'LIKELY A MISUNDERSTANDING'
Only weeks ago, there were back-channel talks between Israel and Syria on a possible normalization deal. Now, not only are those talks out the window, but the strikes will complicate work on a U.S.-brokered Abraham Accords-style deal to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Wilson said. "It's so sad to me, it's so detrimental."
He warned that fractures in Syria could ripple across the region — undermining emerging ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia, straining NATO relations with Turkey, fracturing Druze unity in Jordan and increasing instability among Kurdish populations across Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran. He added that such fragmentation would open the door for an ISIS resurgence, targeting Israel first.
Wilson also pointed to broader geopolitical consequences, noting the strikes empower Iran and bolster Russia's presence in Syria. "Efforts should be made to expel [Vladimir Putin's forces], not to create destabilization," he said, asserting that Moscow uses its Syrian bases to project naval power across Africa and the Mediterranean.
"What is being done is actually beneficial to Iran. The more destabilization, the greater opportunity Iran has to destabilize other countries, whether it be further destabilization of Iraq, and then also it plays into the hands of war criminal Putin."
This week, Israel's national security minister Ben Gvir said Israel must "eliminate" al-Sharaa.
On Thursday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said the nation struck to defend Druze minority communities in Syria, fearing the Syrian leadership would soon strike Israelis.
"I did not trust Assad the father, nor Assad the son, and I certainly do not trust a leader like Julani," he said, referring to al-Sharaa by his former name.
ISRAEL-IRAN WAR DIVIDES DEMOCRATS, BUT TRUMP'S DIPLOMACY ALSO SPLITTING REPUBLICANS
He claimed al-Sharaa "relies on jihadist groups that he operates against minorities in Syria, and tomorrow he will operate them against Israeli communities in the Golan Heights.
"The moment we understood that the Syrian regime was behind the attacks and a partner in the massacre of the Druze — we acted against them with full force." The Druze community also has a sizable population in Israel.
Wilson called the assertion "totally contrived and misunderstood."
"It's so sad to me that they're taking the eye off the enemy. The enemy is Khamenei and the enemy is the head of the snake. It is not Damascus. The head of the snake is Tehran."
"They're opening the door for Tehran to rebuild Hamas to rebuild Hezbollah, to replenish and they already have the Houthis. So, it's just crazy. And again, it's suicidal. If you can't figure out who your enemy is, then you're opening the door for massive loss of life within Israel itself."
Syria's leader accused Israel of sowing discord by striking in defense of the Druze, who were involved in deadly sectarian clashes that threaten the nation's fragile unity.
Washington is also intensifying pressure for de-escalation.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The Trump administration has formally urged Israel to halt its strikes and pursue direct talks with Damascus. Special U.S. envoy Tom Barrack reportedly made several calls to Prime Minister Netanyahu's adviser, Ron Dermer, pressing for restraint. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the strikes as a "troubling and horrifying situation," adding that the U.S. is "very concerned" and wants the fighting to stop.
The Israeli defense ministry could not be reached for comment. Print Close
URL
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pro-israel-congressman-accuses-tel-aviv-mocking-trump-suicidal-strikes-syria
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
18 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Robert A. Pape: To prevent nuclear war in the Middle East, America needs to change its nuclear doctrine
The world is moving closer to the brink of nuclear war in alarming ways that are more dangerous and harder to anticipate than during the Cold War. The famous 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was a harrowing near miss, but today's nuclear dangers are more complex. This is due to a variety of factors, particularly coming together in the Middle East: increasing tensions across the region, growing risks of nuclear proliferation, and now perils of surprise military attack during crises involving states with nuclear weapons or on the cusp of nuclear weapons. Israel's recent 12-day war against Iran is a harbinger of potentially growing nuclear dangers to come. For the first time in history, two nuclear armed states — Israel and the United States — bombed a state, Iran, with a major nuclear program that many believe is on the threshold of acquiring all the physical and technical capacities necessary to produce nuclear weapons within a matter of months. For sure, the 12-day war involved a series of attacks and counterattacks that were terrifying to live through, and there was great relief when they came to an end. However, the future is even more concerning. First, Israeli and American bombing did not obliterate Iran's nuclear program, as President Donald Trump astonishingly declared before he received bomb damage assessments. As is now widely agreed among U.S. defense intelligence, Israeli intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan did not eliminate Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. Although uncertainly remains about Iran's next steps, there is little doubt that Iran could attempt to produce a 'crude' bomb in a matter of months. And it is important to understand, a 'crude' bomb means a Hiroshima-style weapon that could lead to the deaths of 80,000 people from the immediate effects of the blast. Second, future information about Iran's nuclear program is fraught with high degrees of uncertainty. From the beginning, Iran has allowed IAEA inspectors to have tremendous access to monitor its nuclear enrichment program. True, these inspections have fluctuated over time and have never been as fully comprehensive as many would have liked. However, for decades, the quarterly IAEA reports have been crucial for high confidence assessments about the scale of Iran's enrichment program and whether vast amounts of enriched uranium have not been siphoned off to develop nuclear weapons. Now, Iran has reportedly banned IAEA inspectors from its nuclear facilities, and the fear and suspicion about a surprise nuclear breakout will grow over time. Third, and most important, the 12-day war shows that the fear of surprise attack is now fully justified. It is important to recall that the war started June 13 with a stunning, Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear sites. Israel's bolt-from-the-blue strike occurred without warning and while Iranian negotiators were preparing to meet with their American counterparts just days later. Given these events, Israel, the United States and Iran now face the specter of one of the most terrifying scenarios for nuclear war: the 'reciprocal fear of surprise attack.' That's a situation in which both sides of a potential conflict fear being attacked first, leading them to consider — and possibly launch — a preemptive strike to avoid being caught off guard. The most worrisome aspect is that striking first in these circumstances has an element of rationality. If one side thinks the other is preparing for a surprise attack, then attacking first, even if it carries risks, may be the best way to reduce one's own losses. Of course, nuclear war is so horrible that the reciprocal fear of surprise attack may never lead to an actual outbreak of war. If so, then the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would not be a problem in the first place. Alas, we need to take this danger seriously. What can be done? Although there are no perfect solutions to the reciprocal fear of surprise attack, there is one step that would significantly matter: For the United States, Iran and Israel to declare that they would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a crisis involving Iran. The general idea of 'no first use' pledges, as they are called, arose during the Cold War, but the United States has never been willing to make such a promise. At the time, this was thought of in the context of the U.S., Europe and Soviet contest in which America needed the implicit threat of the first use of nuclear weapons to offset the Soviet conventional military threat to U.S. nonnuclear European allies. The Middle East is clearly different. America's main ally, Israel, is a powerful nuclear weapons state and so does not rely on U.S. nuclear weapons to deter attacks on its homeland. For the United States, Israel and Iran to agree a limited no-first-use policy would not end the tensions over Iran's nuclear program. However, it would energize negotiations and avoid some of the worst ways that a nuclear war could inadvertently occur. The Nobel Laureate Assembly to Prevent Nuclear War taking place at the University of Chicago recently was a perfect place to begin a national conversation about the value of adapting U.S. nuclear doctrine to today's realities in the Middle East. If this assembly of the most brilliant minds on the planet could recommend this historic step in which the U.S., Iran and Israel each pledge they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in the dispute involving Iran's nuclear program, this would be a meaningful step toward preventing nuclear war in one of the most dangerous regions in the world.
Washington Post
19 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump survived many scandals, but the Epstein story poses a new test
Nearly two weeks after President Donald Trump and his administration announced they had nothing more to say about Jeffrey Epstein's criminal case, the topic continues to dog him, presenting a potential new political liability at the six-month mark of his presidency as Trump tries to sell more Americans on his accomplishments.
New York Times
19 minutes ago
- New York Times
Why American Jews No Longer Understand One Another
It's a tense time in the Jewish family group chats. The consensus that held American Jewry together for generations is breaking down. That consensus, roughly, was this: What is good for Israel is good for the Jews. Anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism. And there will, someday soon, be a two-state solution that reconciles Zionism and liberalism. Every component of that consensus has cracked. Zohran Mamdani's triumph in New York City's Democratic primary for mayor has forced, among many Jews, a reckoning with how far they have drifted from one another. Mamdani does not use the slogan 'globalize the intifada,' but he does not condemn those who do. He has said that if he were mayor, Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, would face arrest on war crimes charges if he set foot in New York City. Israel has a right to exist, he says, but 'as a state with equal rights.' Many older Jews I know are shocked and scared by Mamdani's victory. Israel, to them, is the world's only reliable refuge for the Jewish people. They see opposition to Israel as a cloak for antisemitism. They believe that if the United States abandons Israel then Israel will, sooner or later, cease to exist. To them, Mamdani is a harbinger. If he can win in New York City — a city with more Jews than any save Tel Aviv — then nowhere is safe. Many younger Jews I know voted for Mamdani. They are not afraid of him. What they fear is a future in which Israel is an apartheid state ruling over ruins in Gaza and Bantustans in the West Bank. They fear what that means for anti-Jewish violence all over the world. They fear what that will do — what it has already done — to the meaning of Jewishness. Their commitment to the basic ideals of liberalism is stronger than their commitment to what Israel has become. To call Mamdani an anti-Zionist is accurate, but the power of his position is that it is thoroughly, even banally, liberal. 'I'm not comfortable supporting any state that has a hierarchy of citizenship on the basis of religion or anything else,' he said. There are ethnonationalists who might object to that sentiment. But the flourishing of American Jews is built atop that foundation. ' It really points to what I think is the fundamental contradiction of American liberal Zionism,' Daniel May, the publisher of Jewish Currents, a leftist journal of Jewish thought, told me. 'American Jews tend to think that our success in the United States is a product of the fact that the country does not define belonging according to ethnicity or religion. And Israel is, of course, based on the idea of a state representing a particular ethnic religious group.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
