“DUMB QUESTION”: Michigan Democrat Abdul El-Sayed Refuses to Say Whether Iran or Israel Poses Greater Threat to America
Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed refused to say whether he considers Israel or Iran a greater threat to the United States during a television interview released Wednesday, dismissing the question as “a dumb question” while accusing Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of helping push America into war with Iran.
The exchange took place during an interview with NewsNation host Leland Vittert, portions of which were made public Wednesday. El-Sayed, who is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Gary Peters, repeatedly shifted the discussion toward diplomacy, American military spending and the economic consequences of the ongoing conflict with Iran rather than directly comparing the threats posed by the two countries.
Vittert raised the issue after referencing an interview with one of El-Sayed’s supporters who had suggested that Israel posed a greater danger to American interests than Iran. The host asked whether the Democratic candidate shared that assessment.
Vittert asked, “One of your supporters we interviewed seemed to think that Iran was a bigger threat — Israel — seemed to think Israel was a bigger threat than Iran to the United States. Do you agree?”
Rather than provide a direct answer, El-Sayed argued that the United States should prioritize diplomatic solutions to international disputes. He then turned his attention to Netanyahu, alleging that the Israeli leader had played a significant role in persuading Washington to enter the conflict with Iran.
El-Sayed responded, “Well, look, at the end of the day, our job is to address our issues diplomatically. But, right now, we are in the war in Iran, in part, because of the advocacy of the Israeli prime minister. There’s no disagreement on that. He came to the Situation Room and advocated for the war. And we’re now paying, what? $1,600 for it. Our gas, our groceries are unaffordable. And that’s on top of the billions in tax dollars that we spend sending our money over there. Now, how we think about a threat, that’s –.”
The candidate’s comments reflected his broader criticism of American military involvement in the Middle East and U.S. financial assistance to Israel. Throughout his Senate campaign, El-Sayed has argued that Washington should redirect resources away from overseas military commitments and toward domestic priorities, including healthcare, infrastructure and reducing the cost of living.
His assertion that Netanyahu advocated for the war also placed responsibility on Israel’s leadership for influencing American decision-making. The United States and Israel have conducted military operations against Iran amid concerns about Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, missile capabilities and regional military activities. El-Sayed has consistently opposed the conflict, questioning its strategic justification and economic consequences.
As El-Sayed continued discussing the financial costs of the war, Vittert interrupted and attempted to bring the conversation back to the original question about national security threats.
Vittert pressed, “You’re going to be a senator, what do you view as the biggest threat?”
El-Sayed again declined to identify either Iran or Israel as the greater danger, instead outlining his opposition to American funding for foreign military operations and his belief that international law should be applied consistently to all countries.
El-Sayed responded, “I’ve been more than extremely clear about this. I don’t want our tax dollars being used to subsidize war abroad. I don’t want our tax dollars being used to fund, unconditionally, foreign militaries. I think it’s important that we be the first among equals to enforce international law against any and every country that breaks it. So, this sort of, like, hypothetical, who’s a bigger threat is a dumb question.”
The Democratic nominee maintained that the more important issue was determining the foreign policy the United States should pursue, rather than ranking countries according to the threats they might pose.
El-Sayed added that “the big question is…what is the public policy we really want?”
The interview comes during a closely watched Senate contest in Michigan, where El-Sayed is facing Republican nominee Mike Rogers, a former congressman and former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. The race has attracted national attention because of its potential implications for control of the Senate and the sharp differences between the candidates on foreign policy, economic issues and President Trump’s administration.
El-Sayed, a physician and former Detroit health director, secured the Democratic nomination after defeating Rep. Haley Stevens in a competitive primary. His campaign has received support from prominent progressive figures, including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and has emphasized opposition to overseas wars and unconditional American military assistance to Israel.
The candidate has made the war with Iran a central campaign issue, arguing that military expenditures abroad have contributed to financial pressure on American households. He has repeatedly connected the conflict to rising energy costs and broader concerns about affordability, an issue that has featured prominently in Michigan’s Senate campaign.
In a separate interview with Fox News earlier this week, El-Sayed clashed with host Martha MacCallum over the justification for military operations against Iran. He questioned whether the conflict had improved American security and argued that diplomatic alternatives should have been pursued. MacCallum challenged his assessment by pointing to Iran’s nuclear activities and longstanding security threats in the region.
El-Sayed has also criticized American policy toward Israel during the war in Gaza, arguing that Washington should condition military assistance on compliance with international law. His positions have generated debate among Michigan voters, particularly within Jewish and Arab American communities that hold sharply differing views on Israel and American involvement in the Middle East.
His campaign has faced additional scrutiny over his association with left-wing political commentator Hasan Piker, who has drawn criticism for past statements about terrorism and the October 7 Hamas massacre. El-Sayed campaigned with Piker during the Democratic primary, but recent reporting indicates that he privately urged the commentator to moderate his public rhetoric as the general election approached.
During a September appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” El-Sayed was questioned about concerns among Jewish voters regarding his relationship with Piker. He rejected the focus on the commentator and argued that voters were more interested in economic issues, healthcare and the consequences of American foreign policy.
The controversy has become part of a broader debate surrounding El-Sayed’s candidacy, with critics questioning his approach to Israel and antisemitism while supporters argue that his positions reflect opposition to military intervention and a desire to prioritize domestic spending.
The Michigan Senate race has also seen significant involvement from national Democratic leaders. Former President Barack Obama is scheduled to campaign alongside El-Sayed in Detroit on October 24, an appearance intended to help consolidate Democratic support ahead of the November election. Former Vice President Kamala Harris has also campaigned on his behalf.
Rogers, meanwhile, has recently sought to distinguish his positions from certain Trump administration policies, including the ongoing tariff dispute with Canada and the war with Iran. His campaign has emphasized Michigan’s economic interests and his national security experience, while El-Sayed has accused him of changing positions for political advantage.
The candidates are scheduled to participate in televised debates on October 8 and October 21, providing additional opportunities for voters to examine their positions on foreign policy, the economy and the country’s ongoing military involvement overseas.
El-Sayed’s latest exchange with Vittert places renewed attention on his reluctance to directly compare Israel and Iran as potential threats to American national security. Although he repeatedly emphasized diplomacy and opposition to foreign military spending, he left unanswered the host’s central question about which country he considers the greater danger to the United States.
