Follow us on social

2021-06-23t143714z_1658848442_mt1sipa000zjljl9_rtrmadp_3_sipa-usa-scaled

House GOP opens a new shameful chapter in diplomatic sabotage

A letter signed by more than 160 Republicans promising to kill the Iran nuclear deal could have been drawn up by hardliners in Tehran.

Analysis | Middle East

Nearly seven years ago, Sen. Tom Cotton convinced 46 of his fellow Senators to sign an open letter to Iran’s leadership, warning against agreeing to a nuclear deal with the Obama administration and highlighting that the next president could undo the agreement with a stroke of a pen. The backlash was fierce, with the senators branded traitors on social media along with warnings that they violated the Logan Act, which bans Americans from interfering with U.S. foreign policy.

Even the late Sen. John McCain, who once sang joyfully about the prospect of bombing Iran, was taken aback by the pushback and blamed an impending snowstorm for not giving the letter better consideration. Cotton’s letter was an unprecedented act — but one that has seemingly grown normalized in the post-Trump era, as it becomes expected that America will not honor its word as political power swings back and forth between pro-diplomacy and anti-diplomacy camps.

This week, House Republicans organized the brazen follow-up to Cotton’s letter, with more than 160 lawmakers laying out a series of unobtainable demands for any deal and warning that a new deal will “meet the same fate” as the agreement Trump withdrew from. Even if we’ve come to expect this kind of sabotage from many elected Republicans it is yet another shameful chapter in which many of our nation’s lawmakers are at the heart of the problem.

This isn't aimed at Biden, it's not even aimed at hurting Iran, it is an attack explicitly aimed at sabotaging U.S. diplomats by strengthening the hand of those in Iran who prefer to reject a deal, escalate regional tensions, and rapidly close in on a nuclear breakout capability. The hardline propaganda apparatuses in Iran would be hard pressed to launch a more effective assault against American diplomacy and national interests than the House Republican caucus.

Negotiations to revive the agreement are at a critical stage, with parties noting that a deal can be struck within days. According to reports, an agreement of approximately 20 pages has been drafted, with sections dedicated to nonproliferation steps, sanctions lifting, and sequencing. It has been no small task to reach the precipice of a deal amid domestic American political turmoil, a change in governance in Iran, and major sabotage aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities in the first half of 2021. A few of the thorniest issues remain, including what to do with Iran’s advanced centrifuges and what assurances Washington can offer that it won’t exit the nuclear deal again.

Regrettably, there are few guarantees that Biden or other U.S. policymakers can credibly offer that a future U.S. president won’t follow Trump’s lead. But however much noise Republicans can generate in opposition to the agreement, they are doing so at a decisive disadvantage in comparison to when they tried and failed to kill the nuclear deal in 2015. Then, Republicans controlled each chamber of Congress when Obama negotiated the original bargain. And despite the drama they raised to deter the United States and Iran from entering a mutually beneficial deal, the agreement was secured despite legislative vehicles intended to kill them. This time, Biden has his party holding a slim majority in each chamber for now. Given that the vast majority of Democrats support the deal, the political path to securing reentry is easier. Even if Republicans take House and Senate majorities in the midterm elections, they will have few direct lines to kill the deal without support from the Oval Office.

Likewise, experience has made the deal all the more attractive with time. While Obama rightly foresaw that the options were between escalation to war and diplomacy, Trump’s exit from the deal proved him prescient. Iran — spurred on by ever increasing sanctions, escalation and sabotage — did not agree to a better deal as predicted by opponents of the JCPOA. Instead, Iran predictably escalated in kind, bringing its nuclear program to new heights and posing new security challenges across the region. As a result, Trump twice found himself at the brink of war, only to pull back despite the urging of his hawkish advisers.

The letter’s signatories also had the gall to offer empty platitudes to the Iranian people about their hope that sanctions can one day be lifted — while trying to stand in the way of just such an opportunity. Iranians have been struggling for years under an oppressive government at home and crippling sanctions imposed by the United States that have decimated Iran's middle class and exacerbated the suffering of Iran's most vulnerable populations. Iranians took to the streets in 2015 to celebrate the nuclear accord and their hopes for what was to come. The message from these lawmakers — that they will not only tank an agreement that would lift those sanctions and improve the lives of Iranians, but they will do so in the name of the very Iranians they are punishing — is an insult and reflection of the dehumanization of Iranians that is the bread and butter of our Beltway hardliners.

Despite the noise, Biden’s choice remains clear. He can listen to those who would oppose any nuclear agreement with Iran and double down on the failed maximum pressure approach that has set the United States and Iran on course for a disastrous war. Or he can restore the nuclear agreement and try to make it work as it was intended. The path may not be easy, but the choice is clear. It is time to restore the nuclear agreement, roll back Iran’s nuclear program and restore sanctions relief that will benefit ordinary Iranians. Only then can Biden show that the United States intends to honor its commitments, and seek to build a more durable foundation that could better protect the agreement from the caustic politics in Washington and Tehran.


United States House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (Republican of Louisiana) offers remarks while joined by House Republicans for a press conference regarding China and COVID-19 accountability, at the US Capitol, in Washington, DC, Wednesday, June 23, 2021. Credit: Rod Lamkey / CNP/Sipa USANo Use Germany.
Analysis | Middle East
Mike Waltz: Drop Ukraine draft age to 18
Top Photo: Incoming National Security Advisor Mike Waltz on ABC News on January 12, 2025

Mike Waltz: Drop Ukraine draft age to 18

QiOSK

Following a reported push from the Biden administration in late 2024, Mike Waltz - President-elect Donald Trump’s NSA pick - is now advocating publicly that Ukraine lower its draft age to 18, “Their draft age right now is 26 years old, not 18 ... They could generate hundreds of thousands of new soldiers," he told ABC This Week on Sunday.

Ukraine needs to "be all in for democracy," said Waltz. However, any push to lower the draft age is unpopular in Ukraine. Al Jazeera interviewed Ukrainians to gauge the popularity of the war, and raised the question of lowering the draft age, which had been suggested by Biden officials in December. A 20-year-old service member named Vladislav said in an interview that lowering the draft age would be a “bad idea.”

keep readingShow less
Zelensky, Trump, Putin
Top photo credit: Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky (Office of Ukraine President/Creative Commons); US President Donald Trump (Gabe Skidmore/Creative Commons) and Russian President Vladimir Putin (World Economic Forum/Creative Commons)

Trump may get Russia and Ukraine to the table. Then what?

Europe

Russia’s dismissive response to possible provisions of a Trump settlement plan floated in Western media underscores how difficult the path to peace in Ukraine will be. It also highlights one of the perils of an approach to diplomacy that has become all too common in Washington: proposing settlement terms in advance of negotiations rather than first using discreet discussions with adversaries and allies to gauge what might be possible.

To achieve an accord that Ukraine will embrace, Russia will respect, and Europe will support, Trump will have to revive a tradition of American statesmanship — balancing power and interests among capable rivals — that has been largely dormant since the Cold War ended, and U.S. foreign policy shifted its focus toward democratizing other nations and countering terrorism.

keep readingShow less
Tulsi Gabbard
Top photo credit: Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, President-elect Trump’s nominee to be Director of National Intelligence, is seen in Russell building on Thursday, December 12, 2024. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA)

Tulsi Gabbard vs. the War Party

Washington Politics

Not long after Donald Trump nominated Tulsi Gabbard to serve as his director of national intelligence (DNI), close to 100 former national security officials signed a letter objecting to her appointment, accusing her of lacking experience and having “sympathy for dictators like Vladimir Putin and [Bashar al-]Assad.”

Trump has now made many controversial foreign policy nominations that stand at odds with his vows to end foreign wars and prioritize peace and domestic problems — including some who are significantly less experienced than Gabbard — yet only the former Hawaiian Congresswoman has received this level of pushback from the national security establishment so far.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

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.