Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1046082265-scaled

House Dems unite to support the Iran nuclear deal

Democrats organized a letter to Joe Biden 'strongly endorsing' his pledge to rejoin the 2015 accord that blocked Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon.

Analysis | Reporting | Middle East

Democratic congressional leaders are marshaling a message to President-elect Joe Biden “strongly endorsing” his promise to return to the Iran nuclear deal without preconditions, Gregory Meeks, (D-N.Y.), the incoming chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee told the Quincy Institute this week.   

“We are sending a signal to our allies that America is getting back to the table!” 

The letter, first reported by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, was organized by the members of the whip team that secured support for the JCPOA in 2015 — Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Rep. Jan Schakowski (D-Ill.), Rep. David Price (D-N.C.) and Rep. Meeks, in addition to Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) and Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.). It decries the Trump administration’s exit from the agreement and argues that a return to the deal will not only prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb, but also lay the “foundation for progress on other critical issues.”   

“My colleagues and I — including all three contenders for the chairmanship of the House Foreign Affairs Committee — decided it was important to send a strong and unified message from Congress to President-elect Biden that we support diplomacy, including taking early steps to return both Iran and the United States to JCPOA compliance,” Rep. David Price explained to QI.   

Contrary to common perceptions that Congress is hostile territory for diplomacy with Iran, the swift organizing of the letter and the backing of both the Democratic leadership and the three contenders for the chairmanship of HFAC suggest remarkable support of the deal among Democrats. In fact, Rep. Sherman was a vocal opponent of the deal in 2015 but has since become supportive. 

Lawmakers tie the growing support for the nuclear agreement both to “the need to figure out some common ground again,” and to the realization that the deal worked and put the United States in a much stronger position.  

“People understand now that while we were in the JCPOA, Iran was complying with it,” Meeks explained. “It worked! We had the ability to inspect their program and that made the world and the region safer.”

“I think what we see is members of Congress interested in moving away from a failed policy, back to an agreement that actually worked,” Rep. Lee added.  

The initiative may not only foreshadow Congress’s attitude toward the JCPOA, but also HFAC’s role in support of diplomacy under the leadership of Chairman Meeks. The New York Democrat has played a long and important role in behind-the-scenes diplomacy with U.S. adversaries. As the chair of the Congressional Dialogue Caucus, Meeks has been on the forefront of opening channels of communications with countries such as Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela. 

His efforts in favor of diplomacy with Tehran dates back almost two decades, at a time when supporting negotiations with Iran was far more politically risky and costly. Hoping to prevent war between the United States and Iran under President George W. Bush, Meeks helped open up channels of communications between members of Congress and Iran’s ambassador to the U.N. at the time — Javad Zarif.

Looking towards the future, Meeks hints that HFAC may play an even more active role in establishing dialogue with other parliaments, including with the Iranian Majlis. “A lot of work remains as the two sides are not fully ready yet,” he told me. “But we can get there.”


Photo: Orhan Cam via shutterstock.com
Analysis | Reporting | Middle East
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
The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan
Taipei skyline, Taiwan. (Shutterstock/ YAO23)

The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan

Asia-Pacific

For the better part of a decade, China has served as the “pacing threat” around which American military planners craft defense policy and, most importantly, budget decisions.

Within that framework, a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan has become the scenario most often cited as the likeliest flashpoint for a military confrontation between the two superpowers.

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.