Why Abdul el Sayed can’t say Iran is a bigger threat than Israel

Michigan’s Democratic Senate nominee, Abdul el Sayed, has a stock answer whenever he’s asked about his close friend and campaign surrogate, Hasan Piker, who said America deserved 9/11, called the U.S. government worse terrorists than al Qaeda, and has openly praised various jihadis and Communist dictators while expressing a seething hatred for the United States. El Sayed deflects, saying that his race isn’t about a “streamer from California,” feigning amnesia over Piker’s name.In a recent interview with Fox News’s Martha MacCallum, the candidate said his “conversation” with Piker was no different than the on-air discussion he was having with her. This might have been a compelling answer if he’d invited MacCallum to appear with him on the stump five times in Michigan, which is what el Sayed did with Piker (el Sayed recently lied that he and Piker had only appeared together once on the trail).Regardless, he clearly still has the phone number of this suddenly nameless “California streamer,” as CNN reports that he recently rang up his endorser and begged him to maybe hit the mute button until the election is over. “El-Sayed recently called Piker and warned his rhetoric was costing El-Sayed votes, asking him to stop,” according to the outlet.Piker’s grave sin here, you’ll notice, is not outwardly supporting terrorists or despising America. It’s the threat of his vile outbursts costing el Sayed votes. El Sayed can’t have that. For now, at least, he’d rather his top supporter stop speaking until approximately Nov. 4.El Sayed himself is also attempting to sidestep what he views as sensitive issues or risky terrain. For instance, he declined to offer any statement about the Oct. 7 anniversary. Yes, despite his near-constant obsession with Israel, he finally picked one specific day on which to fall silent on the subject. When asked about the notable silence, he initially didn’t bother to attempt any explanation.One might think it should be rather easy to unflinchingly condemn a terrorist massacre that slaughtered nearly 1,200 men, women, and children — including dozens of Americans — but el Sayed went with a “no comment.” Perhaps he was worried about offending his base, which is why he also didn’t weigh in on the death of Iran’s evil “supreme leader,” warning his campaign that many of his core supporters were mourning the loss of the blood-drenched, theocratic tyrant (when pressed on this last week, el Sayed snapped that it wasn’t a “smart” question and refused to answer. As we’ll discover, this avoidance tactic is becoming a pattern).Maybe he was having uncomfortable flashbacks to his appalling response to an Islamist terrorist attack against a Synagogue in Michigan earlier this year, in which he made excuses for the terrorist with a “hurt people hurt people” equivocation that also cast blame on Israel (which had eliminated members of the attacker’s family. The fact that they were apparently confirmed fighters in the terrorist group Hezbollah was left unmentioned in el Sayed’s analysis).It’s possible that el Sayed sees Election Day rapidly approaching and determined that saying how he truly feels about Hamas’s atrocity would cost him votes, so instead, he offered … nothing. He tried to spin this choice as a high-minded refusal to “politicize” the attack, but on Oct. 7, 2025, he fundraised off an email blast that blasted Israel, but not Hamas. Subtle, as ever.Along similar lines, NewsNation journalist Leland Vittert informed el Sayed earlier this month that one of his supporters had called Israel a greater threat to the U.S. than the Iranian regime. Did el Sayed agree with that assessment? The candidate launched into a lengthy diatribe against Israel and the conflict against Iran, not bothering to even hint at any negative sentiments toward the regime in Tehran.Realizing he hadn’t addressed the “bigger threat” question, even as he spent his time bashing the Jewish state, el Sayed concluded his nonanswer with an insult: “This sort of, like, hypothetical ‘who’s a bigger threat’ is a dumb question.”In a fiery debate later in the week, he ducked a moderator’s follow-ups on this “hypothetical” issue as “ridiculous.” Actually, no. It’s not hypothetical at all. Our enemies’ threats and our allies’ support are very real. It should be a dumb and ridiculous question when posed to a candidate for high office in the U.S.Obviously, the “death to America” regime that has spent the better part of half a century targeting and murdering Americans, developing an unchallenged reputation as the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and aggressively pursuing an illicit nuclear program is a grave threat to our country. Equally obviously, this committed and fanatical enemy bears no resemblance to Israel — a pluralistic democracy and stalwart American ally that shares valuable intelligence with us, does a great deal of our dirty work in the region, and faithfully tracks and liquidates threats to our mutual security. So, the notion of Iran and Israel even being mentioned in the same derogatory context is preposterous, especially if someone is trying to pretend Israel somehow compares unfavorably to the mullahs.But the question asked of el Sayed is, frighteningly, no longer “dumb” or “ridiculous.” It’s essential. And the answer he furnished exposed why. The Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in a major battleground state is at best unsure whether Iran’s regime is more of a threat to America than one of our closest allies, the Jewish state. What ought to be a ludicrous question was, in fact, extremely revealing. Yet again.This dynamic is reminiscent of another recent exchange, in which anti-Israel agitator Mahmoud Khalil once again refused to condemn Hamas on CNN. He was asked to do so, he dismissed the question as “silly” (sound familiar?), and rejected the premise as a useless “litmus test.” Well, yes. “Will you condemn a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization that has murdered many Americans” is indeed a litmus test. It’s an easy one.Khalil, a guest in this country, failed the test. As a leader in a campus group that called, in writing, for the “total eradication of Western civilization,” it’s not a great mystery as to where this terrorism supporter and bigot’s loyalties lie. It’s also an unsettling sign of the times how many elected Democrats have championed his cause as the Trump administration seeks his deportation.But Khalil isn’t running for public office el Sayed is. The “dumb” and “silly question” echo, paired with a refusal to answer very basic threshold questions about America’s enemies, ought to be a significant data point in this campaign. Will Michiganders agree?NO KNOCKOUT BLOW: STRATEGISTS SAY MICHIGAN SENATE DEBATE UNLIKELY TO SHIFT RACEFinally, el Sayed is trying to tout his foreign policy approach as “America First” in new ads, ripping off the famous Trump slogan. Perhaps in his mind, running interference for the “Death to America” regime qualifies. Beyond that, it’s rather rich that he’s resorting to this rhetorical framing, having previously called Trump’s formulation — literally the exact same words — “very troubling” and the stuff of “Nazi sympathizers.”It’s almost as if he’s a cynical opportunist who will do or say anything to detract from his extremist views.