Follow us on social

2010-03-23t000000z_2072037444_gm1e63n0w0d01_rtrmadp_3_israel-usa-scaled

Hawkish Iran letter falls flat in the Senate

Pro-diplomacy groups said the letter, led by AIPAC, was an effort meant to prevent Biden from reentering the Iran nuclear deal.

Reporting | Middle East

Forty-three mostly Republican senators have joined an effort backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to pressure the Biden administration to take a harder line on Iran.

Sens. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) had been pushing their colleagues for at least several weeks to sign a letter to President Joe Biden on the Iranian issue, as Responsible Statecraft first reported.

AIPAC, which has consistently called for a harder line on Iran and opposed the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts, promoted the letter as top priority during its annual conference, the Jewish Insider reported.

The hawkish pro-Israel group had already pushed 70 Democrats and 70 Republicans in the House of Representatives to sign a letter on Iran.

But the letter by Menendez and Graham was far less bipartisan, perhaps due to the senators’ previous efforts to derail diplomacy with Iran, with Graham having pushed for regime change and war. The two senators were joined by only thirteen Democrats and Senator Angus King (I–Maine), who is registered as an Independent but belongs to the Democratic caucus.

Only two Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — Ben Cardin (Md.) and Chris Coons (Del.) — joined Menendez, who chairs the committee. Ranking Member Jim Risch (Idaho) as well as Sens. Todd Young (Ind.) and Mike Rounds (S.D.) were the only Republicans on the committee to sign.

The letter calls on Biden to “use the full force of our diplomatic and economic tools in concert with our allies on the United Nations Security Council and in the region to reach an agreement that prevents Iran from ever acquiring nuclear weapons and meaningfully constrains its destabilizing activity throughout the Middle East and its ballistic missile program.”

Menendez and Graham’s effort was seen by JCPOA proponents as an attempt to derail a return to the 2015 nuclear deal and continue the Trump administration’s maximalist policies. J Street, a left-leaning pro-Israel group, lobbied senators not to sign on.

“There are legitimate concerns about a number of Iranian policies — nuclear, regional and domestic,” said Barbara Slavin, Director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council. “But there is only one feasible route to address them and that is by first rejoining the JCPOA. Those who demand a more ambitious agenda up front are just erecting obstacles to any diplomacy with Iran. The result will be a further deterioration in the status quo.”
Under the 2015 deal, Iran had agreed to strict limits on its nuclear program and international inspections in exchange for six world powers lifting the international embargo on the Iranian economy.

The Trump administration broke from the deal in 2018, replacing it with a strategy of “super maximum economic pressure” aimed at securing a “better deal.” Biden has condemned this strategy as a “dangerous failure” and vowed to return to the 2015 deal before negotiating on other issues.

NIAC Action, the National Iranian American Council’s lobbying arm, argued earlier this month that Menendez and Graham’s letter “would make the attainable impossible and risks setting President Biden on course for war with Iran” because it “suggests that the only acceptable agreement is one that addresses all concerns with Iran at once.”

“There is one clear option for the administration to roll back Iran’s nuclear program and create a pathway to begin negotiations on other areas of concern: returning to full compliance with the [2015 deal],” the pro-diplomacy group argued. “Any efforts to muddle or frustrate this pathway are not helpful and risk frustrating serious diplomatic efforts that are underway.”

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) salutes as he arrives to address the gala banquet of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual policy conference in Washington March 22, 2010. Declaring "Jerusalem is not a settlement," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu struck a defiant note on Monday after new U.S. criticism of Jewish home construction in disputed territory in and around the city. His speech in Washington to AIPAC, an influential pro-Israel lobby group, contrasted sharply with an address U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made at the same forum hours earlier. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS)
Reporting | Middle East
Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. speaking wit… | Flickr

Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten

Media


Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

keep readingShow less
Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

Peter Thiel attends the annual Allen and Co. Sun Valley Media Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, U.S., July 6, 2022. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

QiOSK

The trouble with doing business with Israel — or any foreign government — is you can't really say anything when they do terrible things with technology that you may or may not have sold to them, or hope to sell to them, or hope to sell in your own country.

Such was the case with Peter Thiel, co-founder of Palantir Technologies, in this recently surfaced video, talking to the Cambridge Union back in May. See him stumble and stutter and buy time when asked what he thought about the use of Artificial Intelligence by the Israeli military in a targeting program called "Lavender" — which we now know has been responsible for the deaths of an untold number of innocent Palestinians since Oct 7. (See investigation here).

keep readingShow less
Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Committee chairman Jack Reed (D-RI), left, looks on as co-chair Roger Wicker (R-MS) shakes hands with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on President Biden's proposed budget request for the Department of Defense on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., April 9, 2024. REUTERS/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Military Industrial Complex

Now that both political parties have seemingly settled upon their respective candidates for the 2024 presidential election, we have an opportune moment to ask a rather fundamental question about our nation’s defense spending: how much is enough?

Back in May, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, penned an op-ed in the New York Times insisting the answer was not enough at all. Wicker claimed that the nation wasn’t prepared for war — or peace, for that matter — that our ships and fighter-jet fleets were “dangerously small” and our military infrastructure “outdated.” So weak our defense establishment and so dangerous the world right now, Wicker pressed, the nation ought to “spend an additional $55 billion on the military in the 2025 fiscal year.”

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest

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.