Democrats Doubt Iran Diplomacy But See No Alternative

Democratic lawmakers don’t trust President Donald Trump’s ongoing diplomacy with Iran. They also want the war to be over — meaning their only real choice is to hope the president can keep peace talks going.

Legislators and aides told NOTUS they are not seeing an appetite among Democrats to stymie the negotiations, say by introducing legislation to prevent the U.S. from lifting relief or by pushing to vote down an accord.

“If we stand in the way of an agreement, we own that too,” one staffer said, requesting anonymity to discuss internal conversations.

Some Democrats said their ranks are coming to a frustrating conclusion: Trump’s war gave Iran the upper hand, so it’s inevitable the U.S. will need to make significant concessions to avoid resuming the conflict, which voters in general and Democrats particularly oppose.

“We need to put an end to this illegal war now,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland told NOTUS on Tuesday. “When you’re digging a hole, you should stop digging.”

Van Hollen wants Democrats to be clear about the likely outcome of resisting talks with Iran: “The alternative, unsaid, is to keep the war going.”

Effectively, the party may prioritize the survival of the ceasefire above all – criticizing Trump’s approach, but with limits on how far they will go. It’s a stance that could help cement broader shifts among Democrats in Congress that reflect views among their base, like far greater wariness of Israel and a more cautious view of what American pressure against international foes can achieve. On Tuesday, primary elections in New York delivered a slew of victories for Democrats sharply critical of Israel, and aligned with the party’s broadly anti-war left flank.

After Trump signed his memorandum of understanding with Iran last week, some — including Sens. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota — hinted at torpedoing the talks or treating them as inherently flawed.

Others, including influential House members, cautiously embraced negotiations. A second aide told NOTUS the situation was a “roller coaster.”

Matt Duss, the executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and former adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders, said he has seen Democrats adapting their message “to make clear the problem here is not the peace agreement, it was the war.”

“Yes, this is a bad agreement that concedes a lot to Iran,” Duss told NOTUS. “That’s what happens when you lose.”

Senate Democrats have remained united in voting against Trump’s ability to wage the war, with the sole exception of ardently pro-Israel Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania.

But there are fault lines in how they view the cost of the truce. Wariness of Iran is deep-rooted and could, for some Democrats, present a chance for a bipartisan rebuke of Trump.

“The idea that we give Iran relief from sanctions now, that we allow them to export their oil, that we front-load the benefits for Iran, including commitments of a $300 billion reconstruction fund, makes no sense at all,” Sen. Adam Schiff of California told NOTUS, referring to aspects of the memorandum and steps by the Trump administration this week.

“The administration needs to hear from both parties that that’s a really terrible deal,” Schiff said.

Those who want Democrats to back diplomacy hope to discourage attack lines like the false claim Trump is paying billions to Iran that might otherwise benefit Americans, and Democrats bolstering hawkish Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has suggested a congressional vote on any possible deal with Iran that could be fatal for an accord.

They warned against a similar dynamic to the political debate over President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, which some Democrats called too conciliatory to Tehran.

“It’s unfortunate, if unsurprising, the same Democrats who opposed the Obama administration’s [deal] are already opposing this effort in favor of a magical ‘unicorn option’ that doesn’t exist,” a senior Democratic aide told NOTUS – indicating willingness to challenge such voices.

Obama’s nuclear deal is sure to come up repeatedly as the Iran diplomacy continues. Some in the party’s national security corps, including in influential think tanks and advocacy groups, want to emphasize that Democrats were able to secure a strong agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear program and allowing for verifications, without lifting all sanctions as Trump has agreed to.

Things have changed over a decade, however.

“Back in 2015, what was not on the table was Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz,” damaging the global economy, the second aide said.

Eric Eikenberry, the government relations director at Win Without War, said the Democratic Party needs to stop “clinging in the back of their minds to the idea that ultimately we have decisive military leverage,” as some did in the Obama era.

“An evolution the broader party is going to have to make is seeing that diplomacy was always the only option and even if they were entertaining these break-glass options, they were never going to work,” he told NOTUS. “Now we have an experiment: Trump broke the glass and we’re in an even worse position.”

Some involved in the party’s soul-searching hope a decisive shift away from vilifying foreign enemies and reliance on projecting military force is underway – a move that could clearly differentiate Democrats and appeal to the national mood.

“The war was an avoidable catastrophe, but … a result of decades of bipartisan idiocy about Iran,” said Duss. “This is a moment to really reassess.”