Should the United States continue to send fighter jets and tanks to Egypt? Many
members of Congress think that is a bad idea given the changing circumstances in that
country. Others believe we should maintain relations by sending arms because of the
strategic location of Egypt. It controls the Suez Canal and has been a staging point for
U.S. operations in the gulf.

Back in 2010, the U.S. government ordered F-16 fighter planes from Lockheed
Martin as part of an annual aid package that regularly tops $1 billion. The next year was
the revolution that changed the leadership and the direction of Egypt. Hosni Mubarak
was removed and imprisoned. Mohammed Morsi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood,
was elected. The changing circumstances on the ground are why many are hesitant to
send fighter jets and tanks to Egypt.

The United States accounts for as much as 80 percent of the Egyptian Defense
Ministry’s weapons procurement costs. American taxpayers have become Egypt’s major
arms supplier. They have subsidized the supply of F-16 fighters, M1A1 Abrams battle
tanks, armored personnel carriers, Apache helicopters, and hundred of millions of dollars
of other military equipment.

Senator Rand Paul introduced legislation to stop the transfer of these weapons to
Egypt. He said it was “unwise to send tanks and our most sophisticated fighter planes at
the time at which many are saying the country is unraveling.” He added that he thought it
was “particularly unwise since Egypt is currently governed by a religious zealot who said
recently that ‘Jews were bloodsuckers and descendants of apes and pigs.’”

Senator Paul also pointed out that Egypt is a “country that detained American
citizens on trumped-up political changes.” He reminds us that it is also a “country that
allowed a mob to attack our embassy and to burn our flag.”

I believe its big mistake to send sophisticated weapons to Egypt that someday
could be used against Israel.