عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
World

Democrats Criticize Revival of Iran Nuclear Deal

Democrats during a press conference - AP
Democrats during a press conference - AP
TT
TT

Democrats Criticize Revival of Iran Nuclear Deal

Democrats during a press conference - AP
Democrats during a press conference - AP

A year after the Vienna negotiations, lawmakers are strongly voicing their opposition against US President Joe Biden's quest to return to the nuclear agreement.

The opposition came this time from the Democratic Party, which has significant implications, although it has not effectively affected any potential deal with Iran.

Democrats held a press conference to express their opposition to any possible agreement with Tehran that would bring it back to the 2015 nuclear deal concluded by the former administration of President Barack Obama.

Over 15 representatives raised critical concerns about the looming Iran deal, warning that lifting sanctions on the Iranian regime would release funds that Tehran will allocate for its terrorist activities.

Congressman Josh Gottheimer said Iran has proven that it cannot be trusted.

"The IRGC, Iran's paramilitary terror arm, has directly, or through their proxies including Hezbollah, Hamas, and PIJ, killed hundreds of Americans and attacked our bases and our allies in the region."

Congresswoman Elaine Luria warned that the US could not afford a new failed agreement, strongly opposing any deal that does not entirely prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and does not protect the Middle East region and the world.

Luria expressed her deep concern about repeating the failed agreement negotiated by the Biden administration, cautioning that it will strengthen Iran and threaten Israel's security and global security.

The press conference paves the way for more voices opposing the agreement, especially among conservative Democrats, to join the Republicans who have repeatedly expressed their strong opposition to the talks.

The Republican representatives showed solidarity with their fellow Democrats opposing the agreement and, in turn, held a separate press conference to express their opposition to any deal with Tehran.

Members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, headed by Michael McCaul, stated that the Biden administration is on the verge of reaching a weak nuclear deal with Iran and violating US law because it will not send the agreement for a Congressional vote.

Can Congress block the deal?

The short answer is No

Congressional sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that although Congress passed the "Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (INARA)" in May of 2015 after the Obama administration approved the agreement, the Biden administration worked hard to make it look like any new agreement with Tehran was an extension of the first agreement, with the aim of avoiding a vote at the Congress.

On May 14, 2015, Congress passed the INARA Act by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 98 senators out of 100 and 400 representatives out of 435 in the House of Representatives.

The law obligates the US administration to put any new nuclear agreement with Iran to a vote, said the sources, adding that the lawmakers fear the Biden administration will claim this agreement is not unique to put for a vote.

Opposing lawmakers may use another maneuver to try to block the agreement.

They plan to put forward a bill to veto the deal as they did in 2015 when 269 deputies voted against the agreement in the House of Representatives and 56 senators against it in the Senate.

However, they couldn't obstruct the bill because that requires a two-thirds majority of votes in the Senate and House of Representatives, and as of now, there are not enough Democrats in opposition.

The Senate needs 60 votes to formally object to a deal of this type, which means that 10 Democrats must vote against it with all Republicans.

Republicans warn that the next Republican president will withdraw from the agreement, as former President Donald Trump did.

Over 200 Republicans wrote a letter to Biden last month, saying that any agreement in Vienna without congressional approval will face the same fate as the 2015 agreement.

Republican Senator Ted Cruz told Asharq Al-Awsat that opponents of Biden's approach to the nuclear agreement would resort to any tools they had to obstruct the administration's agenda.

Democrats voiced their concern about the recurrence of a scenario of this kind and its impact on the credibility of the United States.

Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres believes there would be "bipartisan opposition" to the renewed nuclear deal with Iran.

"I worry about an endless cycle of a Democratic president renegotiating the Iran deal, followed by a Republican president who withdraws from it. We should have an agreement that can stand the test of time", Torres said.

Lawmakers say the only way to prevent the next president from abandoning the deal is to put it as a "treaty" in the Senate and formally vote on it.

Most Viewed

 
 
World

How Likely Is the Use of Nuclear Weapons by Russia?

This photograph taken at a forensic expert center in an undisclosed location in Ukraine on November 24, 2024, shows parts of a missile that were collected for examination at the impact site in the town of Dnipro following an attack on November 21. (Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP)
This photograph taken at a forensic expert center in an undisclosed location in Ukraine on November 24, 2024, shows parts of a missile that were collected for examination at the impact site in the town of Dnipro following an attack on November 21. (Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP)
TT
TT

How Likely Is the Use of Nuclear Weapons by Russia?

This photograph taken at a forensic expert center in an undisclosed location in Ukraine on November 24, 2024, shows parts of a missile that were collected for examination at the impact site in the town of Dnipro following an attack on November 21. (Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP)
This photograph taken at a forensic expert center in an undisclosed location in Ukraine on November 24, 2024, shows parts of a missile that were collected for examination at the impact site in the town of Dnipro following an attack on November 21. (Photo by Roman PILIPEY / AFP)

On 24 February 2022, in a televised speech heralding the Russian invasion of Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin issued what was interpreted as a threat to use nuclear weapons against NATO countries should they interfere.

“Russia will respond immediately,” he said, “and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history.”

Then on 27 February 2022, Putin ordered Russia to move nuclear forces to a “special mode of combat duty’, which has a significant meaning in terms of the protocols to launch nuclear weapons from Russia.”

Dr. Patricia Lewis, director of the International Security program at Chatham House, wrote in a report that according to Russian nuclear weapons experts, Russia’s command and control system cannot transmit launch orders in peacetime, so increasing the status to “combat” allows a launch order to go through and be put into effect.

She said Putin made stronger nuclear threats in September 2022, following months of violent conflict and gains made by a Ukrainian counterattack.

“He indicated a stretch in Russian nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for nuclear weapons use from an existential threat to Russia to a threat to its territorial integrity,” Lewis wrote.

In November 2022, according to much later reports, the US and allies detected manoeuvres that suggested Russian nuclear forces were being mobilized.

Lewis said that after a flurry of diplomatic activity, China’s President Xi Jinping stepped in to calm the situation and speak against the use of nuclear weapons.

In September 2024, Putin announced an update of the 2020 Russian nuclear doctrine. The update was published on 19 November 2024 and formally reduced the threshold for nuclear weapons use.

According to Lewis, the 2020 doctrine said that Russia could use nuclear weapons “in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.”

On 21 November 2024, Russia attacked Dnipro in Ukraine using a new ballistic missile for the first time.

She said Putin announced the missile as the ‘Oreshnik’, which is understood to be a nuclear-capable, intermediate-range ballistic missile which has a theoretical range of below 5,500km.

Lewis added that Russia has fired conventionally armed nuclear-capable missiles at Ukraine throughout the war, but the Oreshnik is much faster and harder to defend against, and suggests an escalatory intent by Russia.

Nuclear Response During Cold War

In her report, Lewis said that nuclear weapons deterrence was developed in the Cold War primarily on the basis of what was called ‘mutually assured destruction’ (MAD).

The idea behind MAD is that the horror and destruction from nuclear weapons is enough to deter aggressive action and war, she added.

But the application of deterrence theory to post-cold war realities is far more complicated in the era of cyberattacks and AI, which could interfere with the command and control of nuclear weapons.

In light of these risks, presidents Biden and Xi issued a joint statement from the 2024 G20 summit affirming the need to maintain human control over the decision to use nuclear weapons.

The US and Russia exchange information on their strategic, long-range nuclear missiles under the New START agreement – a treaty to reduce and monitor nuclear weapons between the two countries which is set to expire in February 2026.

But, Lewis said, with the US decision to exit the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019, there are no longer any agreements between the US and Russia regulating the number or the deployment of ground-launched nuclear missiles with a range of 500-5,500 km.

She said short-range nuclear weapons were withdrawn and put in storage as a result of the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives but are not subject to any legal restraints.

The 10th NPT Review Conference was held in 2022 in New York. The issue of nuclear weapons threats and the targeting of nuclear power stations in Ukraine were central to the debate.

Lewis noted that a document was carefully crafted to finely balance concerns about the three pillars of the treaty – non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. But Russia withdrew its agreement on the last day of the conference, scuppering progress.

“It was believed that if Russia were to use nuclear weapons it would likely be in Ukraine, using short range, lower yield ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons,” she said, adding that Russia is thought to have more than 1,000 in reserve.

“These would have to be taken from storage and either connected to missiles, placed in bombers, or as shell in artillery,” Lewis wrote.

Increasingly the rhetoric from Russia suggests nuclear threats are a more direct threat to NATO – not only Ukraine – and could refer to longer range, higher yield nuclear weapons.

For example in his 21 September 2022 speech, Putin accused NATO states of nuclear blackmail, referring to alleged “statements made by some high-ranking representatives of the leading NATO countries on the possibility and admissibility of using weapons of mass destruction – nuclear weapons – against Russia.”

Putin added: “In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country and to defend Russia and our people, we will certainly make use of all weapon systems available to us. This is not a bluff.”

There have been no expressed nuclear weapons threats from NATO states.

NATO does rely on nuclear weapons as a form of deterrence and has recently committed to significantly strengthen its longer-term deterrence and defence posture in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The current UK Labor government has repeatedly reiterated its commitment to British nuclear weapons – including before the July 2024 election, according to Lewis.

Therefore, she said, any movement to ready and deploy Russian nuclear weapons would be seen and monitored by US and others’ satellites, which can see through cloud cover and at night – as indeed appears to have happened in late 2022.

Lewis concluded that depending on other intelligence and analysis – and the failure of all diplomatic attempts to dissuade Russia – NATO countries may decide to intervene to prevent launch by bombing storage sites and missile deployment sites in advance.