This paragraph from a New York Times story on proposed new sanctions for Iran sent a chill down my spine:
Behind these positions is a potent mix of political calculations in a midterm election year. Pro-Israel groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, have lobbied Congress to ratchet up the pressure on Iran, and many lawmakers are convinced that Tehran is bluffing in its threat to walk away from the talks.
I’m ambivalent about the debate over Iran: President Obama is pursuing an agreement with Tehran to suspend its nuclear program (sounds good), while many lawmakers don’t believe Iran can’t be trusted to comply with any diplomatic accord (makes sense). But I don’t want U.S. foreign policy swayed by lobbyists and politics.
It is the unambiguous policy of the United States to forbid Iran from destabilizing the Middle East and threatening Israel with a nuclear program. The question is how to curb Tehran.
Obama wants to exploit the crippling effects of existing sanctions to negotiate an antinuclear deal. The White House argues that a strict new sanctions law would scuttle diplomacy and make military action more likely. His opponents, the GOP and a surprising number of Democrats, argue that new sanctions would decrease the chances of war by keeping Iran in line.
Pro-sanctions forces accuse the White House of politicizing the issue by invoking the specter of war, but there is another political component: the influence of AIPAC and the importance of Jewish voters to the Democratic coalition.
Peter Beinart argues that liberals are not pressuring Senate Democrats enough to oppose the bill.
So why on earth are fourteen Democrats joining Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in openly defying the president? In a party that is clearly moving left on economics, how can so many prominent Democratic senators support a bill so widely scorned by Democratic foreign policy experts? Because in recent years grassroots Democrats have turned their attention away from Middle East policy and AIPAC has not “¦
In 2006, Democrats enraged by Joe Lieberman’s support for the Iraq war denied him their party’s renomination for Senate. In 2008, Democrats embittered by Hillary Clinton’s support for Iraq helped orchestrate one of the biggest upsets in presidential history. But they were too late; the damage was already done. The American left is very good at punishing politicians for supporting disastrous wars. Its challenge in 2014 is to show that it can stop politicians from promoting those wars in the first place.
Greg Sargent of the Washington Post has a good vote count on the bill for strict new sanctions (“An Odd Silence Among Senate Dems on Iran”):
Right now, the current count of senators who are co-sponsoring the Iran sanctions bill is at 58, with 16 Democratic senators supporting it. Meanwhile, 10 Democratic committee chairs have come out against the bill. Harry Reid is said to be against it, too. That leaves nearly 30 Senate Dems unaccounted for.
He called the “conspicuous public silence” of Democrats a sign “of just how cautious Dems are being about the domestic politics of negotiating with Iran right now.”
Obama dithered and stumbled on Syria, but his instincts were right: Avoid bloodshed if at all possible. He is acting prudently on Iran. He is the commander in chief, and you’d expect fellow Democrats to give him the benefit of the doubt. Is the Democratic opposition to Obama based on the merits or born of political calculation? If it’s the former, wayward Democrats had better be right, because the stakes are high. If it’s the latter, shame on them and their “antiwar” party.
What We're Following See More »
First, it was Sean Spicer. Then Reince Priebus. Now, presidential adviser Steve Bannon, perhaps the administration's biggest lightning rod for criticism, is out. “White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve’s last day,” the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said in a statement. “We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.” That's not to say the parting of ways isn't controversial. Bannon says he submitted his resignation on Aug. 7, but earlier today, "the president had told senior aides that he had decided to remove Mr. Bannon."
"The Trump administration has ended Operation Choke Point, the anti-fraud initiative started under the Obama administration that many Republicans argued was used to target gun retailers and other businesses that Democrats found objectionable. Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd told GOP representatives in a Wednesday letter that the long-running program had ended, bringing a conclusion to a chapter in the Obama years that long provoked and angered conservatives who saw Choke Point as an extra-legal crackdown on politically disfavored groups."
"Liberal groups are raising questions about a speaking appearance Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch plans to make next month at the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Gorsuch is scheduled to headline a luncheon celebrating the 50th anniversary of conservative group The Fund for American Studies on September 28, days before the next SCOTUS term begins October 2. Steve Slattery, a spokesman for The Fund for American Studies, said Gorsuch had nothing to do with venue choice, which was made long before the group asked Gorsuch to speak."