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?
![Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin’s victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share. If this continuation of Putin’s 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it’s that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality. Experts say Washington needs to start projecting a long-term strategy toward Russia and its war in Ukraine, wielding its political leverage to apply pressure on Putin and push for more diplomacy aimed at ending the conflict. Only by looking beyond short-term solutions can Washington realistically move the needle in Ukraine. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, the U.S. has focused on getting aid to Ukraine to help it win back all of its pre-2014 territory, a goal complicated by Kyiv’s systemic shortages of munitions and manpower. But that response neglects a more strategic approach to the war, according to Andrew Weiss of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who spoke in a recent panel hosted by Carnegie. “There is a vortex of emergency planning that people have been, unfortunately, sucked into for the better part of two years since the intelligence first arrived in the fall of 2021,” Weiss said. “And so the urgent crowds out the strategic.” Historian Stephen Kotkin, for his part, says preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty is critical. However, the apparent focus on regaining territory, pushed by the U.S., is misguided. “Wars are never about regaining territory. It's about the capacity to fight and the will to fight. And if Russia has the capacity to fight and Ukraine takes back territory, Russia won't stop fighting,” Kotkin said in a podcast on the Wall Street Journal. And it appears Russia does have the capacity. The number of troops and weapons at Russia’s disposal far exceeds Ukraine’s, and Russian leaders spend twice as much on defense as their Ukrainian counterparts. Ukraine will need a continuous supply of aid from the West to continue to match up to Russia. And while aid to Ukraine is important, Kotkin says, so is a clear plan for determining the preferred outcome of the war. The U.S. may be better served by using the significant political leverage it has over Russia to shape a long-term outcome in its favor. George Beebe of the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft, says that Russia’s primary concerns and interests do not end with Ukraine. Moscow is fundamentally concerned about the NATO alliance and the threat it may pose to Russian internal stability. Negotiations and dialogue about the bounds and limits of NATO and Russia’s powers, therefore, are critical to the broader conflict. This is a process that is not possible without the U.S. and Europe. “That means by definition, we have some leverage,” Beebe says. To this point, Kotkin says the strength of the U.S. and its allies lies in their political influence — where they are much more powerful than Russia — rather than on the battlefield. Leveraging this influence will be a necessary tool in reaching an agreement that is favorable to the West’s interests, “one that protects the United States, protects its allies in Europe, that preserves an independent Ukraine, but also respects Russia's core security interests there.” In Kotkin’s view, this would mean pushing for an armistice that ends the fighting on the ground and preserves Ukrainian sovereignty, meaning not legally acknowledging Russia’s possession of the territory they have taken during the war. Then, negotiations can proceed. Beebe adds that a treaty on how conventional forces can be used in Europe will be important, one that establishes limits on where and how militaries can be deployed. “[Russia] need[s] some understanding with the West about what we're all going to agree to rule out in terms of interference in the other's domestic affairs,” Beebe said. Critical to these objectives is dialogue with Putin, which Beebe says Washington has not done enough to facilitate. U.S. officials have stated publicly that they do not plan to meet with Putin. The U.S. rejected Putin’s most statements of his willingness to negotiate, which he expressed in an interview with Tucker Carlson in February, citing skepticism that Putin has any genuine intentions of ending the war. “Despite Mr. Putin’s words, we have seen no actions to indicate he is interested in ending this war. If he was, he would pull back his forces and stop his ceaseless attacks on Ukraine,” a spokesperson for the White House’s National Security Council said in response. But neither side has been open to serious communication. Biden and Putin haven’t met to engage in meaningful talks about the war since it began, their last meeting taking place before the war began in the summer of 2021 in Geneva. Weiss says the U.S. should make it clear that those lines of communication are open. “Any strategy that involves diplomatic outreach also has to be sort of undergirded by serious resolve and a sense that we're not we're not going anywhere,” Weiss said. An end to the war will be critical to long-term global stability. Russia will remain a significant player on the world stage, Beebe explains, considering it is the world’s largest nuclear power and a leading energy producer. It is therefore ultimately in the U.S. and Europe’s interests to reach a relationship “that combines competitive and cooperative elements, and where we find a way to manage our differences and make sure that they don't spiral into very dangerous military confrontation,” he says. As two major global superpowers, the U.S. and Russia need to find a way to share the world. Only genuine, long-term planning can ensure that Washington will be able to shape that future in its best interests.](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/media-library/following-a-largely-preordained-election-vladimir-putin-was-sworn-in-last-week-for-another-six-year-term-as-president-of-russia.jpg?id=34283894&width=600&height=600&quality=90&coordinates=483%2C0%2C483%2C0)
