Debate on Iran Policy: Challenges and Prospects
In a recent campaign video, Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan’s Democratic Senate nominee, highlighted rising gas prices outside a gas station, attributing them to “a stupid war we shouldn’t be fighting.” His opponent, Republican Mike Rogers, endorsed by Donald Trump, also calls for a swift end to the conflict, though he initially opposed revoking presidential war powers.
Senate nominees from both parties are voicing a desire to end the war, particularly concerning Iran. However, their visions for peace differ. Should Democrats gain control of the House, and possibly the Senate, they face the challenge of crafting a sustainable settlement with Iran. This requires answering key questions regarding mutual compliance and verification.
Iran will question if the U.S. will uphold any agreement post-election. A credible way to ensure this is through a bipartisan congressional backing. Conversely, the U.S. will need assurances that Iran will comply, necessitating verifiable terms.
The 2015 nuclear deal passed without Republican support. Trump withdrew the U.S. in 2018, and a subsequent memorandum with Tehran ended in less than a month. To avoid similar outcomes, Democrats may need to address criticisms of the past deal, while turning their principles into actionable terms.
Democrats’ goals align more closely with Trump’s than they publicly acknowledge. Representative Gregory Meeks criticized the current administration’s failure to meet its objectives, urging multilateral diplomacy. Senator Tim Kaine viewed Trump’s offers as overly generous compared to 2015. Conversely, Senator Chris Murphy argued for swift agreement, emphasizing the human and financial tolls of conflict.
The Pentagon reports 19 U.S. service member deaths and over 820 wounded. Costs have reached approximately $38 billion. This ongoing war has not led to reopening the Strait of Hormuz, where gasoline prices have soared to $4.50 a gallon.
Congressional Role
The House approved three war-powers resolutions since June, with the latest passing in September. A Democratic-controlled House could influence future agreements, though it cannot act independently. Financial control and review processes set by a 2015 law remain influential tools.
At the United Nations, Trump suggested Iran is delaying action pending midterm election results. Should this timeline unfold, the current Congress would handle the agreement’s review, complicating Democratic plans.
Reuters reported negotiations involving a trade of reopening Hormuz in exchange for lifting a U.S. blockade. However, disputes continue over leverage and order of actions. Former U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross described the blockade as restrictive, and Meeks referred to military blockades as acts of war. Ending hostilities would entail reevaluating these dynamics.
The June memorandum exemplifies the pitfalls of ambiguity, with differing U.S. and Iranian interpretations of strait control. The Democrats’ resolution allows for military response in imminent attacks, yet its applicability to neutral shipping remains uncertain.
Nuclear Challenges
The nuclear situation is more complex than in 2015. The IAEA’s report outlines limited visibility over Iranian nuclear sites. Issues such as sunset clauses and inadequate inspections have gained prominence.
Addressing these challenges could require Democrats to compromise, supporting an agreement structured by a leader whose war tactics they oppose. Gaining bipartisan support is crucial for durability.
The key issue is not the widespread desire to end the war, shared by Republicans, but what commitments Democrats will embrace. They need to determine criteria for inspector access, relief measures, and the nature of agreements. Clarifying these elements will help untangle the diplomatic complexities left by Trump’s administration.