Though a majority in the Senate may vote against the Iran nuclear agreement, the deal is now expected to survive. Last week, President Barack Obama gained enough support in the Senate to sustain a presidential veto.
But that's not the same as getting a majority in Congress to sign on to support the deal. In fact, unless the situation changes dramatically, a majority in Congress will vote against diplomacy.
Many critics of the deal continue to talk about the need for military action - no matter the potential price in blood and treasure. Meanwhile they disparage diplomacy, no matter how low the risk and costly the alternatives.
Some did not even bother pretending to consider both sides before excoriating the deal or announcing their opposition. Many, including Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a key voice in the party leadership, seem to have decided that "no" is the safest vote - not for the United States (or Israel), but for their electoral security.
In fact, it is often politically safer for members to vote for war and against diplomacy. That reality is nothing new.
Compare the likely outcome of the Senate vote on the Iran deal with the actual vote on the 2002 Iraq war authorization. The Iraq vote garnered large majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate. In fact the final tally in the Senate was 77-23.
Many members of Congress were anxious about the political consequences of being perceived as "weak" if they didn't support military action in Iraq. The same dynamic appears to be in play today. In addition, few were held to account later for the Iraq decision, though it cost thousands of American lives and more than an estimated $2 trillion.
Members of Congress today are still considering how to vote on the Iran nuclear deal. Some senators may now even be more encouraged to vote against the agreement, knowing it will survive. In other words, support for diplomacy is again perceived as the riskier vote for Congress members. Why is this?
One reason is that war tends to fail objectively long before it fails politically. Politically, less-than-satisfactory results often become the justification for even more war. The lives lost and the costs expended become a rationale to stay the course - as in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
By contrast, the often ambiguous or uncertain results of diplomacy can become justifications for belligerence or war, even before an agreement has been tested in practice: We tried diplomacy and didn't get 100 percent of what we wanted - so now it's time for military action.
Rejecting diplomacy also often tracks with the interests of members' constituencies - which can be counter to national public opinion trends? Consider, though Americans polled overall tend to favor war with Iran only after all other options have been exhausted, public opinion differs by state and district.
This is one key reason why Congress is not given the responsibility of negotiating foreign policy. Members, such as Schumer, must speak for their own slice of the country. It is the president's job, however, to negotiate on behalf of the country as a whole.
Members of Congress, meanwhile, can continue to argue for a better agreement with Iran with few political repercussions. Even though most experts and world powers that negotiated this deal agree that the likelihood of such an outcome is a fantasy.
The same short-term political logic that pushed many members of Congress, such as Schumer, to endorse war in Iraq in 2003 motivates them now to oppose the Iran agreement. Some members are holding diplomacy to a far higher standard, despite the stark evidence of recent history when diplomacy was cast aside.
If Congress instead strengthened the president's hand by enforcing the agreement, a congressional endorsement would send a strong signal to Iran that, should this deal fail, there is only one option left.
Nothing in the Iran agreement limits the ability of the U.S. military to do its job. Ten to 15 years from now, Washington's options for military action will not have changed.
Members of Congress should feel secure that a vote for the agreement reflects strength, not weakness. Voters, meanwhile, should be prepared to assign a cost to those who choose political expedience - and in the process make war more likely.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.
13 Comments
Login to comment
kcjapan
"a majority in Congress will vote against diplomacy. . . Some members are holding diplomacy to a far higher standard, despite the stark evidence of recent history when diplomacy was cast aside . . . Nothing in the Iran agreement limits the ability of the U.S. military to do its job." - article
The character of using the American Military, as a voodoo stick, to answer every problem is the ultimate failing of the GOP-Tea nihilism.
War on women, war on children, war on the elderly, war on Iran on and on the song goes.
Again, these accords are a decade in the making. Six nations worked together. The GOP-Tea is so certain they're right, they're ready to go to war for it. (Is there a pattern here?)
The GOP-Tea craven lust for the White House blinds them to any progress and a penchant for inflicting willful harm against ordinary Americans. That's some moral majority.
plasticmonkey
One of the worst characteristics of foreign policy discourse in American politics: the idea that starting a war is being 'tough'.
bass4funk
At the same time, Dems think that EVERYTHING can be resolved through peace or taking it up....
Can make an argument for either as contributing factors in that regard.
But the Dems blindly trust a country with which the U.S. has had NO diplomatic relations with for almost 35 years and this Charlatan is willing to throw everyone overboard and yes, including women and children and elderly people on both sides which is what will happen once Iran breaks every rule and acquires a bomb.
The last 7 years have been severely harmful to the American people, but as long as Obama get what he wants,coho the heck cares, right?
Stuart hayward
Why it's easier for Congress to vote for war than peace?
Powerful lobbyist and the corrupted politicians, who are influenced by them! And an even deeper problem, that plastic monkey pointed out, a culture or perception that a peaceful compromise is considered weak by most of the public and many politicians.
turbotsat
Congress almost never votes for war. So I don't know where the authors are getting their headline from.
The problem with the Iran deal is it lets Iran delay site inspections, giving them enough time to sanitize such sites. Where do you think they'll conduct their research?
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/delayed-inspections-jcpoa-provisions-for-iaea-access-to-suspicious-sites/
AiserX
The main reason why its so easy for Congress to vote for war, regardless of party representation is because of the Israel lobby via entities like AIPAC. This is really the ultimate unspeakable truth of the matter, unspeakable because then you get pasted with a the label A*-S***.
katsu78
Which is why Franklin D. Roosevelt, one of the more famous Democrats in American history, famously responded to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor with a call for Congress to engage in reconciliation and dialogue.
Laguna
...and also why John F. Kennedy recognized France's losing game in Indochina and helped broker Vietnam's independence.
serendipitous
And war is a great place for the US (and some allies) to test out new weaponry in real situations. Then after destroying a country, sell weapons to that country so it can defend itself. Great business model, it's just a pity hundreds of thousands have to die for it.
1glenn
It is disappointing that Republican politicians will vote against this deal along party lines, while Democrats are at least considering the measure.
In regard to the vote to go to war with Iraq in 2002, I would point out that Democrats were in the minority at that time, but even so, a majority of the Democrats in the House of Representatives voted against going to war, while Republicans voted en masse for war.
Republicans tend to be very organized in voting against anything proposed by a Democrat, while Democrats are famous for trying to be reasonable. Sometimes it is more productive to negotiate with an unfriendly foreign leadership than it is with the "loyal opposition."
turbotsat
Or it could just be that a deal with an inspection loophole that lets Iran continue research in hidden sites is a bad deal. So why are ANY Democrats considering the deal?
BertieWooster
Republicans, Democrats what's the difference?
They are all Americans.
And Americans have killed between 20 and 30 million since the end of WWII - mostly in senseless "wars":
http://www.sott.net/article/273517-Study-US-regime-has-killed-20-30-million-people-since-World-War-Two
The US has created a blood bath in the Middle East. Trying to explain it away by blaming "the dems" or the "republicans" is not excuse at all.
Nessie
BertieWooster, your numbers are hilarious. Your cited source is counting 900,000 Chinese dead in the Korean War as if the U.S. were responsible for North Korea invading South Korea.