Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2021-03-31-at-5.34.55-pm

Progressive Dems: Biden needs to move first on Iran nuclear deal

Reps. Murphy and Khanna are frustrated with the pace of JCPOA re-entry, but the White House may be ready to make some moves.

Reporting | Middle East

Two progressive Democratic members of Congress argued on a Wednesday panel that the United States needs to make the first move in returning to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D–Conn.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) called for a more proactive U.S. stance towards the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action at a video event hosted by the National Iranian American Council and several other pro-diplomacy groups.

“It was a disappointing start when it comes to Iran policy from this administration,” Khanna said. “We have to try to get back into the JCPOA by getting back into the JCPOA, not playing a game of chicken.”

He suggested that State Department Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley has had his hands tied by other factions in the administration.

“I know Rob Malley understands this, I know he is qualified to do this, so I wonder where the roadblocks are,” Khanna added.

Under the original JCPOA, six world powers agreed to lift the international embargo on the Iranian economy in exchange for strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program. The Trump administration broke from the agreement in 2018, and Iran retaliated by increasing some nuclear activities.

The Biden administration has said that it wants to return to the JCPOA, but initially took a hardline stance by demanding that Iran make the first move. There are signs that the U.S. position is becoming more flexible, although Iran has reportedly now hardened its own stance.

“The United States was the first to leave the agreement, and so the United States shouldn’t be wary of taking the first step back into the agreement,” Murphy said. “There is no weakness in the United States admitting that, but for our noncompliance, the JCPOA would still be alive and well today.”

Both Murphy and Khanna noted that the United States could lift economic sanctions immediately, and restore them if Iran failed to reciprocate.

Murphy claimed that the Trump administration’s policy had a “very small silver lining” because it proved that “maximum pressure was a miserable, one hundred percent failure.”

“Trump did exactly what opponents of the JCPOA recommended,” he said. “It’s important to remind the opponents of the agreement that their argument has been tested. Their argument has failed.”

Murphy and Khanna also noted that the United States needs to get Iran to the table in order to resolve the bloody conflict in Yemen.

And Murphy called for a deeper reset in the U.S. relationship with the region that moves away from sectarian views.

“We need to have a broader conversation about whether we really have an interest in who wins these fights between the Sunni and Shi’a side of the region,” he said. “We certainly may have a favorite, but the question is whether we need to weigh in as decisively as we have over the past decade.”


Photos via @RepRoKhanna and shutterstock.com
Reporting | Middle East
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

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.