Leading Democrats have consistently pegged their anti-Trump “resistance” to a more confrontational stance toward Russia — and bundled this demand with a push for greater escalation against Iran. Now, the danger of this strategy is undeniable: These same Democrats helped set the stage for Trump’s disastrous “withdrawal” on Tuesday from the nuclear deal with Iran — and are playing a meaningful role in pushing U.S. foreign policy to the right.
Under the 2015 Iran deal, the United States ostensibly loosened sanctions in exchange for an agreement by Iran to roll back its nuclear program (Iran did not have an active nuclear weapons program). Trump’s withdrawal puts the United States and its allies on course for further military confrontation with Iran and its allies — and forces ordinary Iranians to suffer the consequences of devastating sanctions, including medicine shortages and food insecurity.
Every single Democrat in Congress had a hand in creating the political climate for Tuesday’s developments. Last summer, nearly the entire House and Senate voted in favor of legislation that grouped together sanctions against Russia, Iran and North Korea. The final version of the bipartisan legislation materialized after sanctions against Russia were tacked onto an existing Iran bill in a measure introduced by Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D‑Calif.), Steny Hoyer (D‑N.Y.) and Eliot Engel (D‑N.Y.).
The only “no” votes on the House version—H.R. 3364: Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act—came from the isolationist Libertarian-leaning Republican wing: Reps. Justin Amash (R‑Mich.), John Duncan Jr. (R‑Tenn.) and Thomas Massie (R‑Ky.). An anti-war front rooted in solidarity with the people of Iran, Russia and North Korea was nowhere to be found. Even Rep. Barbara Lee (D‑Calif.), who built her name on her courageous stand against war in the aftermath of the 9⁄11 attacks, voted for the bill.
Days later, on July 27, the Senate passed the same bill in a 98 – 2 vote. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I‑Vt.) was the only lawmaker in Congress who caucuses with the Democrats to issue a “no” vote. Democrats showed they were willing to risk destroying the Iran agreement in an attempt to punish Moscow.
Obama’s former Secretary of State John Kerry warned at the time that the new sanctions ran the risk of upending the Iran deal. At a fundraiser in San Francisco last June, Kerry said, “If we become super provocative in ways that show the Iranian people there has been no advantage to this, that there is no gain, and our bellicosity is pushing them into a corner, that’s dangerous and that could bring a very different result.”
Democrats explicitly cited Russia when supporting the bill. Sen. Dianne Feinstein told Intercept reporters Alex Emmons and Ryan Grim last July: “I just looked at the sanctions, and it’s very hard, in view of what we know just happened in this last election, not to move ahead with [sanctions].”
At the time, Sanders was harshly criticized for his “no” vote. Adam Parkhomenko, who served as a former aide to Hillary Clinton and founded the Ready for Hillary PAC, said on Twitter last July: “Feel the Bern? Bernie Sanders voted against Russian sanctions today. 98 Senators voted for Russian sanctions today. Sanders voted the same way anyone with the last name Trump would vote if they were in the Senate. No excuses ― stop making them for him.”
With near unanimous support from Congress, Trump signed the sanctions bill into law in August.
After Trump announced on Tuesday that the United States would pull out from the Iran deal, the same leading Democrats who voted for sanctions in 2017 immediately criticized his decision. Pelosi called it a “sad day” and ranking Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Sen. Bob Menendez — who authored the sanctions bill — called withdrawal a “huge mistake.” Sen. Dick Durbin took Menendez’ assessment one step further, declaring it a “mistake of historic proportions.” Even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer — who voted to block the Iran deal — said there wasn’t any reason for the United States to violate the agreement. “There are no reports that Iran has violated the agreement,” Schumer told reporters.
Schumer is correct about Iran not violating the agreement, but — according to Iran — the United States had already effectively violated it last summer when Schumer and the vast majority of congress voted for the new sanctions. “In our view the nuclear deal has been violated and we will show an appropriate and proportional reaction to this issue,” Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in an interview after the sanctions passed.
While most Democrats claim they support the Iran deal despite their reckless pro-sanctions votes, Schumer is among the four Senate Democrats who voted in favor of a Republican-backed bill that would have blocked the deal, along withJoe Manchin (D‑W.V.), Ben Cardin (D‑MD) and Bob Menendez (D‑N.J.). In the House, 25 Democrats opposed the agreement in 2015.
“I have looked into my own soul and my devotion to principle may once again lead me to an unpopular course, but if Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it,” said Sen. Menendez at the time. “It is for these reasons that I will vote to disapprove the agreement and, if called upon, would vote to override a veto.”
Now, Democrats who voted for sanctions — or outright opposed the Iran deal — are loudly condemning Trump for withdrawing from the accord. Missing from this discussion is a sober assessment of how Democrats’ push for sanctions and escalation — emboldened by the myopic focus on Russiagate — undermined the Iran deal and created political momentum for Trump’s disastrous decision. Regardless of what one thinks about the motives and scope of Russian influence operations — or their leverage over the Trump administration — the net effect of Democrats’ overwhelming focus on Russia for two years is undeniable: an increase of tensions with Russia and, by extension, its biggest strategic ally in the Middle East — Iran.
There is reason to be concerned that, by killing the deal, the Trump administration is paving the way for military conflict with Iran. Shortly after the president’s press conference on Tuesday, National Security Adviser John Bolton told reporters that such speculation was a mistake. However just last year, Bolton told members of the militant Iranian-exile cult the MEK that they will overthrow Iran’s government and celebrate in Tehran “before 2019.”
If this push for war grows louder, it’s hard to envision Democrats doing much resisting.
Many nonprofits have seen a big dip in support in the first part of 2021, and here at In These Times, donation income has fallen by more than 20% compared to last year. For a lean publication like ours, a drop in support like that is a big deal.
After everything that happened in 2020, we don't blame anyone for wanting to take a break from the news. But the underlying causes of the overlapping crises that occurred last year remain, and we are not out of the woods yet. The good news is that progressive media is now more influential and important than ever—but we have a very small window to make change.
At a moment when so much is at stake, having access to independent, informed political journalism is critical. To help get In These Times back on track, we’ve set a goal to bring in 500 new donors by July 31. Will you be one of them?