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
Gaza tent city
Top photo credit: Palestinian Mohammed Abu Halima, 43, sits in front of his tent with his children in a camp for displaced Palestinians in Gaza City, Gaza, on December 11, 2025. Matrix Images / Mohammed Qita

Four major dynamics in Gaza War that will impact 2026

Middle East

Just ahead of the New Year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to visit President Donald Trump in Florida today, no doubt with a wish list for 2026. Already there have been reports that he will ask Trump to help attack Iran’s nuclear program, again.

Meanwhile, despite the media narrative, the war in Gaza is not over, and more specifically, it has not ended in a clear victory for Netanyahu’s IDF forces. Nor has the New Year brought solace to the Palestinians — at least 71,000 have been killed since October 2023. But there have been a number of important dynamics and developments in 2025 that will affect not only Netanyahu’s “asks” but the future of security in Israel and the region.

keep readingShow less
Sokoto Nigeria
Top photo credit: Map of Nigeria (Shutterstock/Juan Alejandro Bernal)

Trump's Christmas Day strikes on Nigeria beg question: Why Sokoto?

Africa

For the first time since President Trump publicly excoriated Nigeria’s government for allegedly condoning a Christian genocide, Washington made good on its threat of military action on Christmas Day when U.S. forces conducted airstrikes against two alleged major positions of the Islamic State (IS-Sahel) in northwestern Sokoto state.

According to several sources familiar with the operation, the airstrike involved at least 16 GPS-guided munitions launched from the Navy destroyer, USS Paul Ignatius, stationed in the Gulf of Guinea. Debris from unexpended munition consistent with Tomahawk cruise missile components have been recovered in the village of Jabo, Sokoto state, as well nearly 600 miles away in Offa in Kwara state.

keep readingShow less
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

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.