In a recent campaign video, Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan’s Democratic Senate nominee, stood outside a gas station pointing at fuel prices, accusing them of being the result of “a stupid war we shouldn’t be fighting.” At the same time, his Republican opponent and former Representative Mike Rogers, endorsed by President Donald Trump, expressed the need for the war’s swift conclusion, despite opposing actions to revoke presidential war powers just two months earlier.
Elsewhere, Ashley Hinson, Iowa’s Republican Senate nominee, similarly sought a “successful and immediate end.” This bipartisan desire for ending the conflict suggests a unified stance over Iran but reveals disagreements regarding the peace process.
“Tehran will ask whether Washington will honor it after the next election… Washington will ask whether Tehran will even honor it.”
Two crucial questions define any lasting settlement: Tehran’s confidence in Washington honoring agreements post-election, and Washington’s requirement for verifiable terms from Tehran. Recent history cautions against optimism. The 2015 nuclear deal passed through Congress devoid of Republican support, and Trump exited from it by May 2018. Trump’s subsequent memorandum with Tehran faltered within weeks.
Democrats acknowledge the importance of addressing Trump’s objections to the previous deal, aiming to reduce the likelihood of future Republican dismissals. Key objectives include Representative Gregory Meeks underscoring the failure in achieving goals for Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, advocating multilateral diplomacy to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Furthermore, Senator Tim Kaine critiqued Trump’s memorandum as overly generous, arguing that Washington offered “a lot more to get a lot less” compared to the 2015 terms. Conversely, Senator Chris Murphy suggested prioritizing ending the war, even if it meant recognizing Iran’s advantage.
The human and financial costs are substantial, with 19 U.S. service members perished, over 820 wounded, and combat operations expending roughly $38 billion. Gasoline prices soared to nearly $4.50 a gallon, and diesel reached unprecedented levels.
Legislative Actions
The House has passed three resolutions on war powers since June, the latest being on September 15, supported by seven Republicans. Despite these efforts, the Senate narrowly overturned a July measure on September 24. Prior war-powers resolutions, though passed by both chambers, didn’t compel the presidential administration to halt fighting.
A Democratic House might influence agreement formation but lacks unilateral blocking capacity. It could, however, engage in required reviews of Iran-related nuclear agreements.
Trump declared at the United Nations on September 22, accusing Iran of waiting out the midterm election’s results, anticipating a deal shortly thereafter. Such timing places the review in Republican hands.
Negotiations on the Strait of Hormuz
Negotiations remain arduous over trade-offs like reopening Hormuz for lifting a blockade. Reuters indicated consideration of easing transit fee demands as a side note rather than complete abandonment by Tehran. The International Maritime Organization upheld toll-free passage in July.
Meeks labeled military blockades as acts of war. Efforts to end hostilities must factor how to handle the strait, especially as tensions lingered over June’s memorandum, interpreted variously by both sides.
“By Murphy’s take, Tehran believed it had been given control of the strait… The American side thought it had conceded no such thing.”
Nuclear Concerns
Recent obstacles with the nuclear dossier exacerbate complexities. The IAEA’s September report highlights a blackout in access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, hindering oversight since June. Issues trace back to accumulating enriched uranium stocks and uncertainty around new enrichment sites.
Past objections from Trump, concerning clauses like weak inspections, resonate increasingly amidst shifting dynamics. Durability demands cross-party endorsement, meaning Democrats may back an agreement from a president they have criticized to pass Republican scrutiny.
Ultimately, it’s not only about ending the war as Democrats and many Republicans converge on its cessation. It involves clarity in terms around inspector access, relieving measures post-Iranian compliance, maintaining military presence for threatened shipping, and adjudicating whether results culminate as Congressional-reviewed agreements.
Addressing these elements may disentangle the complexities left over by Trump’s administration. Alas, failing in this endeavor means inheriting and sustaining the intricacies of previous engagements.