Follow us on social

As Pelosi Taiwan visit looms, Menendez bill would 'gut' One China policy

Top Senate Dem accused of helping hawks sabotage Biden on Iran

Sen. Bob Menendez joined Sen. Lindsey Graham on a letter that diplomacy advocates say is meant to scuttle efforts to rejoin the JCPOA.

Reporting | Middle East

The top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had joined an AIPAC-backed effort to pressure President Joe Biden on diplomacy with Iran, sparking a backlash from pro-diplomacy advocates.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Robert Menendez (D–N.J.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) circulated a letter Monday urging President  Biden to use “the full force of our diplomatic and economic tools…to come to an agreement that meaningfully constrains [Iran’s] destabilizing activity throughout the Middle East and its ballistic missile program.”

Menendez and Graham have both opposed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran that Biden has pledged to rejoin. Biden may already be taking a somewhat harder line on Iran in fear of Menendez’s wrath, Politico reported earlier this month.

The two senators are asking for more offices to sign onto their letter. It comes as 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives joined a Republican-led letter warning that the JCPOA has failed to stop “the full range of Iran’s threats" and calling for Biden to seek an “agreement or set of agreements” that secures more Iranian concessions.

“We have knowledge that AIPAC was behind this letter,” said Dylan Willliams, advocacy director at the left-leaning pro-Israel group J Street, referring to the House letter. “All of these vehicles on Iran and the Senate letter on the ICC are AIPAC asks that would normally be made around their annual policy conference, which is not being held this year. However, they are still making a number of legislative asks as they usually would at this time.”

Williams noted that AIPAC got several Democrats to sign onto a letter calling on the Trump administration to get the United Nations arms embargo on Iran extended. The Trump administration then cited the letter as support for sanctions “snapback,” a controversial diplomatic move opposed by the letter’s top Democratic signer.

“This is a move that AIPAC attempts all the time,” Williams told Responsible Statecraft. “They sell the letter to lawmakers as meaning one thing, and then promote it as backing a materially-different policy.”

AIPAC has not responded to a request for comment from Responsible Statecraft as of press time, but has issued a statement publicly praising the letter. 

Supporters of diplomacy with Iran are now pushing back.

In an email to congressional offices, J Street warned that Menendez and Graham’s letter “will be used by the [JCPOA]'s opponents to claim that letter signers oppose lifting sanctions that must be lifted in order to bring the US back into compliance…unless and until the agreement is massively broadened.”

J Street’s email, which was obtained by Responsible Statecraft, urged supporters of diplomacy not to sign the letter unless it includes a line acknowledging that some signatories support the JCPOA. It also calls on them to cosponsor the Iran Diplomacy Act, a bill in support of the 2015 deal.

NIAC Action, the National Iranian American Council’s lobbying arm, warned in its own statement that Menendez and Graham’s letter “would make the attainable impossible and risks setting President Biden on course for war with Iran” because it “suggests that the only acceptable agreement is one that addresses all concerns with Iran at once.”

“There is one clear option for the administration to roll back Iran’s nuclear program and create a pathway to begin negotiations on other areas of concern: returning to full compliance with the JCPOA,” the statement by NIAC Action argues. “Any efforts to muddle or frustrate this pathway are not helpful and risk frustrating serious diplomatic efforts that are underway.”

The Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker lobby group, also pushed back on the letter.

“This letter from Senators Menendez and Graham supports a continuation of the same failed maximum pressure strategy from the Trump administration, that has created instability in the Middle East, put us on a war footing with Iran, and caused untold human suffering for Iranian people, who now lack access to many critical life-saving medicines,” says Hassan El Tayyab, the committee’s legislative manager for Middle East policy.

Under the JCPOA, the Iranian government had agreed to enforce strict limits on its nuclear program and subject it to rigorous international inspections in exchange for six world powers lifting long-standing economic sanctions against Iran.

Former President Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 and imposed “super maximum economic pressure” while demanding a “better deal.” Iran has since escalated its nuclear activities, although it has promised to roll them back to the limits prescribed by the JCPOA if the sanctions are lifted.

Biden has publicly stated that he wants to get both sides back into compliance with the JCPOA as a springboard for further diplomacy. But hawks are urging the Biden administration to ditch the JCPOA and use sanctions as leverage to gain more concessions, including on Iran’s regional policy and ballistic missile program.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans support “direct negotiations” to deal with the Iranian nuclear program, a poll published by YouGov and the Economist earlier this week shows.

“While we may have differing views on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action of 2015 and the overall approach of the Trump Administration’s maximum pressure campaign, we must confront the reality that Iran has accelerated its nuclear activity in alarming ways,” the letter by Menendez and Graham states. “We further agree that outside of its nuclear program, Iran continues to pose a threat to U.S. and international security.”

Menendez and Graham have both previously opposed the JCPOA and called for a harder line on Iran. In 2013, both proposed a joint resolution backing Israeli military action against the Iranian nuclear program. Later that year, Menendez attempted to pass new sanctions on Iran while negotiations for the JCPOA were still underway, a move that several senior Democrats opposed.

The two senators slightly diverged over Trump’s maximum pressure campaign. Menendez publicly opposed Trump’s decision to leave the JCPOA, while Graham became an enthusiastic supporter of the pressure campaign, even calling for military strikes against Iranian oil facilities

But Menendez also joined Republicans in calling on Trump to maintain economic pressure on Iran during the coronavirus crisis, a position that put Menendez at odds with senior members of his own party, who supported humanitarian exemptions to the sanctions to help Tehran contain  the pandemic.

And he continued to oppose the JCPOA at a confirmation hearing last week, calling the accord insufficient to deal with the full range of Iranian threats.

Other Democrats disagreed with Menendez’s position.

“Many of us supported the [JCPOA] on its terms,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D–Conn.) at the same hearing. “By expanding out the number of things we want to talk about at this negotiating table, I worry that we may be setting ourselves up for failure.”


Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). Jan. 2019 (Photo: lev radin via shutterstock.com)
Reporting | Middle East
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.