There are still several unknowns surrounding the new diplomatic framework limiting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but when news of the deal came down, two things were certain: Republicans would be united in opposition, and Democrats would – in very Democrat-like fashion – panic and fall to pieces.
The Iran deal moves to Congress for review and approval. Since Republicans control both chambers and are predisposed to hate the deal, what will likely happen is they’ll vote to block the removal of sanctions on Iran, and Obama will veto that resolution. The question is whether Republicans can round up enough Democratic support to override Obama’s veto in both houses (it is unlikely this would happen).
But the Republicans will try to extract political benefit from all this by saying mean things about the president “appeasing” the terrorists and attacking Democrats for supporting him. Vox’s Jonathan Allen took the temperature of a few Hill Democrats to get a sense of where things stand, and, predictably, they’re scared that voters will punish them for backing Obama and his diplomatic engagement. They’re looking for ways to duck the issue and keep their fingerprints off it:
“One House Democrat who is generally supportive of the president — and open to the deal — expressed hope Tuesday (July 14) that the Senate would sustain an Obama veto of legislation blocking the deal so that House Democrats wouldn’t have to vote on it at all. It’s easier for Obama to round up 34 senators than 146 House Democrats, the lawmaker argued — even though conventional wisdom holds that the opposite is true.”
Democrats continued their tradition of ceding national security arguments to Republicans because they’re afraid they’ll look “weak.” The alternative to this “hide under some coats and hope that some-how everything will work out” strategy was laid out by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. Murphy has been laying the groundwork for a progressive foreign policy platform, and he told the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent that the Iran deal is the biggest and best opportunity for Democrats to actually make the case that diplomacy is an expression of American strength. The contrast with Republicans is essential here, and there’s a strong case for the Democrats to make that a) the GOP is utterly incoherent when it comes to Iran policy, and b) their preferred policy outcome necessarily makes armed conflict in the Middle East much more likely.
On the first point, one only need look at two of the top-tier candidates for the Republican presidential nomination and their bonkers positions on Iran: Scott Walker and Marco Rubio. Both vow that they would unilaterally withdraw from the diplomatic framework and reimpose sanctions that, they argue, will “cripple” Iran. That’s nonsensical, and it would constitute a flagrant betrayal of some of our closest European allies. And while they’re turning us into international pariahs for breaking faith on the Iran deal, Iran will have all the justification it needs to withdraw from the deal itself and push ahead with whatever nuclear ambitions it has while it blames the United States for scuttling the framework.
That makes the possibility of armed conflict much more likely than under the current proposed deal. “It is true that an agreement with Iran carries some risk,” wrote Mitchell Plitnick and Matt Duss when the diplomatic framework was first announced, “but moving on without a deal is riskier by far. It would mean no inspections, no restrictions on Iran’s actions, increas-ing tensions, and quite possibly, a series of escalations toward another Middle East war.”
You don’t have to look too hard for high-profile Republicans and conservatives advocating war with Iran as the alternative to diplomacy. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who has emerged as the GOP’s voice on Iran issues, talks about bombing Iranian nuclear facilities as if it would be a tidy little affair that we could start and finish in a few days. John Bolton, the neocon who is advising several Republican 2016 candidates and wants to make himself an indispensable foreign policy guru, thinks diplomacy and sanctions against Iran are worthless and that we should just skip to the part where things start exploding.
It’s a contrast between the side that wants to work on a peaceful resolution, and the side that is working to hasten the descent into violence. The public backs the idea of entering into a diplomatic agreement with Iran, and the Hillary Clinton has already thrown her support behind it. There are plenty of reasons for the Democrats to take the fight to Republicans on this one, make an aggressive case for the benefits of diplomacy, and not be cowed by the GOP’s saber rattling. But, of course, that’s no guarantee they’ll actually do it.
Simon Maloy is Salon's political writer. Email smaloy@salon.com.
From The Progressive Populist, August 15, 2015
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us