Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1018169170-scaled

Progressives urge House Dems to help Biden save the Iran nuclear deal

Foreseeing a battle to re-engage Iran in a potential Biden administration, more than a dozen progressive groups sent a letter to Capitol Hill calling on House Democrats to dig in.

Reporting | Middle East

Sixteen progressive groups have signed a letter urging the next House Foreign Affairs Committee chair to help a “potential Biden administration” save the nuclear deal with Iran.

All three candidates to run the committee — one of two powerful foreign policy bodies in Congress — have voiced their support for the deal. Progressives are now asking for specific commitments from the candidates, including a promise to put economic sanctions relief on the table and stop any “poison pill” legislation that would undermine diplomacy with Iran.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D–Calif.) and Rep. Gregory Meeks (D–N.Y.) are currently favored to win the chairmanship, while Rep. Joaquín Castro (D–TX) is running as an insurgent progressive candidate.

“This is potentially the first major foreign policy issue an HFAC chair might have to deal with,” said Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council, one of the signatories of the letter. “The JCPOA has been a real foreign policy litmus test for members of Congress. It’s gotten more scrutiny than maybe any other of Obama’s diplomatic deals.”

The letter was also signed by the Arms Control Association, the progressive Jewish organization J-Street, and  foreign policy-focused groups  Just Foreign Policy and Win Without War.

The United States and five other world powers had agreed to lift international economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program, a 2015 deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action.

President Donald Trump broke from the deal in 2018, and instead began a “maximum pressure” campaign against the Iranian government.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden seems committed to restoring the JCPOA, as his advisors have said that they would support a return to the deal or something like it.

But other roadblocks could emerge from Congress. Friday’s letter from progressives warns that, “many in Congress sought to play spoiler” during the original JCPOA negotiations “by undermining America’s diplomats as they sought to trade in sanctions for far-reaching nuclear concessions.”

“The last time [a deal with Iran] happened, it was a major slog through Congress, with a lot of misinformation about the agreement, and a lot of money being poured in against the agreement,” Costello said.

Indeed, the House voted to disapprove of the JCPOA in 2015, but the measure ultimately failed after Senate Democrats filibustered the bill.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D–N.Y.), the current chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was one of nineteen House Democrats who joined with Republicans to vote against the deal in 2015.

Members of Congress have also supported new sanctions measures ostensibly unrelated to the nuclear file that could jeopardize diplomacy with Iran.

Congress overwhelmingly voted for new sanctions on Iran, North Korea, and Russia in 2017, leading Iran to accuse the United States of violating the nuclear deal.

A majority of House members signed a letter in March 2020 calling for a new arms embargo against Iran. The Trump administration has used the letter to justify “sanctions snapback,” a risky diplomatic move that threatens to kill the JCPOA once and for all.

But progressives now see an opportunity to push Democrats to the left on foreign policy.

Engel will not be returning to Congress in 2021, as he was defeated in New York’s June primary elections, with Reps. Sherman, Meeks, and Castro vying to take over his position as chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

A coalition of seventy progressive groups led by Demand Progress has called on Democrats to adopt a “vision of restraint and progressive realism,” and has tried to organize public discussions involving all three candidates.

Friday’s letter ties the Iran issue to several issues important to the progressive foreign policy coalition.

It calls for the House Foreign Affairs Committee to examine how economic sanctions have affected civilians in Iran — especially in light of the coronavirus pandemic — and asked that the United States “put additional incentives on the table in exchange for Iranian concessions on regional security and human rights.”

The letter also asks for an investigation into “the sidelining of career civil service officers for their work on the JCPOA.”

An internal State Department investigation last year found that the Trump administration had pushed out a Iranian-American career official after more hawkish officials baselessly accused her of loyalty to Iran and anti-Trump bias.

The best evidence of progressive groups’ success so far may be the fact that all three candidates for HFAC chair support the JCPOA.

Meeks and Castro were staunch supporters of the deal from the beginning, and boycotted a 2015 speech by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu urging Congress to reject the JCPOA.

Sherman had originally joined Engel and the Republicans in voting against the JCPOA in 2015, but has since gone on the record in support of restoring the deal.

“Clearly, that’s something that’s shifted, maybe as a result of the HFAC chair race, because a majority of members are opposed to the Trump administration's approach that has brought us to the brink of war,” Costello said.


Photo: W. Scott McGill 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.