Follow us on social

google cta
2020-09-23t155218z_20709791_rc2f4j9ad172_rtrmadp_3_health-coronavirus-usa-hearing-scaled

Sen. Rand Paul bucks party, says getting out of Iran deal was 'a mistake'

The Kentucky Republican leaves classified briefing, says US in "much more difficult position now" than when the JCPOA was enforced.

Analysis | Reporting | Middle East
google cta
google cta

While the rest of his party remains in firm opposition to it, Republican Senator Rand Paul appears to be in favor of a return to the Iran nuclear deal. He said as much on Tuesday, charging that America’s exit from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was a “mistake” made by former President Donald Trump. 

The Senator made the statements in an interview with POLITICO’s Andrew Desiderio after a classified briefing on Capitol Hill, adding that “by all accounts, we’re in a much more difficult position now than when we had” an intact JCPOA. 

Trump withdrew the United States from the nuclear agreement in 2018 and placed a “maximum pressure” sanctions regime on Iran. He believed the economic war would force Iran to the table and he could negotiate a tougher agreement. At the time, the UN nuclear watchdog had confirmed Iran was in full compliance with the JCPOA.

Tehran has made several advancements in its nuclear program, since. However, the progress has remained in the civilian sector. There is no indication Iran is looking to make nuclear weapons. The Iranian government has withstood a lot of the economic pressure, in part, by increasing ties with Venezuela and China. 

The Biden administration has been in negotiations with Iran — and the other parties to the JCPOA, including Russia, China, UK, Germany, France and the EU  — in Vienna for several months with many expecting that there will be an agreement announced in the very near future. 

But one hurdle to a potential return to the agreement is Congressional opposition. Paul recently broke with his party when he became the only GOP Senator not to sign on to a letter that condemned what they considered a weak deal on the table with Iran. (Many Democrats, including Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Menendez, are also opposed to a successful return to the old agreement). 

The March 14 Republican letter states that the senators want nothing less than a new deal with new restrictions on Iran that go far beyond its nuclear program:

“Republicans have made it clear: We would be willing and eager to support an Iran policy that completely blocks Iran’s path to a nuclear weapons capability, constrains Iran’s ballistic missile program, and confronts Iran’s support for terrorism. But if the administration agrees to a deal that fails to achieve these objectives or makes achieving them more difficult, Republicans will do everything in our power to reverse it.”

Former Vice President Mike Pence, in a recent trip to Israel, told Israeli leaders and the press that any future Republican administration would tear up any deal Biden made in Vienna immediately. The Israel government has been one of the deal’s biggest critics and played a heavy role in convincing Trump to withdraw from it in 2018. Interestingly, former Israeli leaders have come forward in recent months to say they thought getting out of the deal and accompanying maximum pressure campaign against Iran might have been a strategic mistake.

With the even Republican-Democrat divide in Congress, Paul's support could actually be crucial for a return to the nuclear agreement with Iran, and he could even serve as an example to other Republicans who may not be so adamantly against it.


U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) looks on during a U.S. Senate Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Hearing, September 23, 2020. Alex Edelman/Pool via REUTERS
google cta
Analysis | Reporting | Middle East
nuclear weapons testing
A mushroom cloud expands over the Bikini Atoll during a U.S. nuclear weapons test in 1946. (Shutterstock/ Everett Collection)

Nuke treaty loss a 'colossal' failure that could lead to nuclear arms race

Global Crises

On February 13th, 2025, President Trump said something few expected to hear. He said, “There's no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. . . You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons . . . We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive.”

I could not agree more with that statement. But with today’s expiration of the New START Treaty, we face the very real possibility of a new nuclear arms race — something that, to my knowledge, neither the President, Vice President, nor any other senior U.S. official has meaningfully discussed.

keep readingShow less
Witkoff Kushner Trump
Top image credit: U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff looks on during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., December 29, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

As US-Iran talks resume, will Israel play spoiler (again)?

Middle East

This Friday, the latest chapter in the long, fraught history of U.S.-Iran negotiations will take place in Oman. Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and President Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff will meet in an effort to stave off a war between the U.S. and Iran.

The negotiations were originally planned as a multilateral forum in Istanbul, with an array of regional Arab and Muslim countries present, apart from the U.S. and Iran — Turkey, Qatar, Oman, and Saudi Arabia.

keep readingShow less
Trump Putin
Top image credit: Miss.Cabal/shutterstock.com

Last treaty curbing US, Russia nuclear weapons has collapsed

Global Crises

The end of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last treaty between the U.S. and Russia placing limits on their respective nuclear arsenals, may not make an arms race inevitable. There is still potential for pragmatic diplomacy.

Both sides can adhere to the basic limits even as they modernize their arsenals. They can bring back some of the risk-reduction measures that stabilized their relationship for years. And they can reengage diplomatically with each other to craft new agreements. The alternative — unconstrained nuclear competition — is dangerous, expensive, and deeply unpopular with most Americans.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.