Senator Lankford, Thank you for your recent reply regarding U.S. military action in Iran. I appreciate the operational overview you provided. However, your response did not address the specific concern I raised, and I want to restate it with absolute clarity.

My message was not about the legitimacy of the operation, the threat posed by Iran, or the President’s authority to act. My concern was the public rhetoric used in the message directed at Iran — specifically the combination of profanity, taunting language, and the phrase “Praise be to Allah” used in a mocking and derisive manner.

My perspective on this issue is informed by over four decades of involvement in the Middle East, beginning with my first year in the Emirates in 1981. Since then, I have worked in and out of the region in multiple capacities, including twelve years stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, directly engaged in diplomacy, interagency coordination, and daily interaction with Muslim partners, officials, and communities.

Because of this experience, I can say with certainty that rhetoric matters.

Mocking or sarcastic use of sacred religious language is not a trivial misstep — it is a strategic liability. It inflames tensions, reinforces extremist narratives, undermines moderate voices, and widens the divide between the United States and the populations we must influence to achieve long-term stability.

It also increases the risks faced by Americans serving overseas, something I understand personally and directly.

This is not a political issue. It is a policy issue, a national-security issue, and a credibility issue.

For decades, U.S. foreign- policy doctrine has emphasized:

• Respect for religious traditions in Muslim-majority countries • Cultural awareness as a core component of effective diplomacy • Professional, disciplined communication in crisis environments • Avoidance of rhetoric that can be construed as religious insult or provocation When official statements appear vulgar, mocking, or dismissive of Islam, they contradict these principles and complicate our strategic objectives. They also hand adversaries a propaganda victory at no cost to them.

In my previous message, I asked for your leadership in reaffirming that U.S. communications —regardless of administration — must reflect professionalism, cultural respect, and responsible statecraft. That specific issue was not addressed in your reply.

I am therefore respectfully requesting a direct, unambiguous response to the following: Do you believe that public communications from U.S. officials should avoid mocking or derisive references to any religion, including Islam, and adhere to the standards of professionalism and cultural respect that support U.S. diplomatic and security interests?

This question goes to the heart of effective foreign policy and the safety of Americans abroad. I look forward to your response.