Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1821150947-scaled

Will Senate Dems join Lindsey Graham’s effort to blow up the Iran nuclear deal?

The GOP senator has been calling for war with Iran for years, and is now circulating a letter some Democrats are reportedly going to sign.

Analysis | Reporting | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Senate Democrats are considering signing on to a letter that critics say is meant to complicate President Biden’s plan to return to the Iran nuclear deal, and is led by a senator who has been calling for war with Iran for more than a decade. 

JCPOA proponents warn that the letter — led by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), and backed by AIPAC — establishes unachievable benchmarks and supports a continuation of President Trump’s failed “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran.

When news of the letter broke last week, pro-diplomacy groups aimed their fire at Menendez, as the letter mirrors an effort he helped lead back in 2014 when he sponsored a bill that would have imposed more sanctions on Iran while talks were ongoing leading up to the JCPOA. 

One senior Democratic senator said at the time that Menendez’s bill was meant to “blow up” the talks and promote regime change. Indeed, as the motive for Menendez’s sanctions push then became more apparent, Democratic support for the bill waned.

A similar dynamic is at play with Menendez’s new letter, not just because it echoes past efforts at gumming up the works on diplomacy with Iran, but also because of who he’s teaming up with: Lindsey Graham.

Graham isn’t interested in diplomacy with Iran or reaching any kind of compromise. His position on the issue has always consistently been that Iran either capitulates to every American demand or faces the wrath of the U.S. military. 

In fact, Graham said nearly 10 years ago that the time for talking with Iran “is over.” Two years before that, Graham said the United States should go to war if Tehran does not end its nuclear program.

The South Carolina Republican also said then that he didn’t believe U.S. intelligence conclusions that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon (because of the JCPOA, international monitors continue to verify to this day that Iran is not building the bomb). Two years before the Iran nuclear deal was agreed to, Graham pushed Congress for an authorization for war against Iran. 

Senator Graham also based his short-lived presidential campaign in 2015 in part on waging war against Iran. And throughout Donald Trump’s time in office, he was a constant voice pushing the president toward military action against the Islamic Republic.

So Graham has clearly shown his cards over the years. Why would he ask his colleagues to sign a letter that doesn’t ultimately set out to achieve his aims? 

What’s perhaps even more perplexing is that Democrats are apparently willing to join this effort. According to a source who works close to the Hill on Iran and the nuclear deal, some Democratic senators have said they will sign on to the new Graham-Menendez letter pushing Biden on the JCPOA. Why would they do that knowing what Graham is ultimately after?


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Photo: Phil Pasquini via shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Reporting | Middle East
Trump
Top image credit: President Donald Trump addresses the nation, Wednesday, December 17, 2025, from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump national security logic: rare earths and fossil fuels

Washington Politics

The new National Security Strategy of the United States seeks “strategic stability” with Russia. It declares that China is merely a competitor, that the Middle East is not central to American security, that Latin America is “our hemisphere,” and that Europe faces “civilizational erasure.”

India, the world's largest country by population, barely rates a mention — one might say, as Neville Chamberlain did of Czechoslovakia in 1938, it’s “a faraway country... of which we know nothing.” Well, so much the better for India, which can take care of itself.

keep readingShow less
Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela
Top image credit: LightField Studios via shutterstock.com

Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela

Military Industrial Complex

As the U.S. threatens to take “oil, land and other assets” from Venezuela, staffers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank funded in part by defense contractors and oil companies, are eager to help make the public case for regime change and investment. “The U.S. should go big” in Venezuela, write CSIS experts Ryan Berg and Kimberly Breier.

Both America’s Quarterly, which published the essay, and the authors’ employer happen to be funded by the likes of Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil, a fact that is not disclosed in the article.

keep readingShow less
ukraine military
UKRAINE MARCH 22, 2023: Ukrainian military practice assault tactics at the training ground before counteroffensive operation during Russo-Ukrainian War (Shutterstock/Dymtro Larin)

Ukraine's own pragmatism demands 'armed un-alignment'

Europe

Eleven months after returning to the White House, the Trump administration believes it has finally found a way to resolve the four-year old war in Ukraine. Its formula is seemingly simple: land for security guarantees.

Under the current plan—or what is publicly known about it—Ukraine would cede the 20 percent of Donetsk that it currently controls to Russia in return for a package of security guarantees including an “Article 5-style” commitment from the United States, a European “reassurance force” inside post-war Ukraine, and peacetime Ukrainian military of 800,000 personnel.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.