The push for new sanctions on Iran has stalled. The
Democrats who bucked President Obama to back the sanctions bill are
backpedaling mightily—no longer even pretending they're pushing Harry
Reid to hold a vote on the measure. And while there's still plenty of
chest-pounding and posturing, the debate's end result seems clear: The
Senate will wait, at least so long as the negotiations move in the right
direction.
That's
a full flip from just more than a month ago. Before the December
recess, the Senate's pro-sanctions faction was surging.
Senators—including Democrats who are typically Obama loyalists—were
agreeing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's claim that the
nuclear negotiations with Iran bordered on capitulation.
So how did Obama—a supposedly feckless president when it comes to handling Congress—turn the tide?
Obama's
in-person, all-hands-on-deck advocacy campaign with the Senate appears
to have advanced his cause, but it's not that simple.
The president
combined tangible developments abroad with fervent support from the
Left, and used it to win out over a fracturing Israel lobby. In the
process, he won—at least for now—a foreign policy victory just as his
critics were insisting Obama's age of influence was over.
"It's
a combination of one side not doing that much and the other side doing a
lot. The AIPAC guys have not been calling us and usually we would be
hearing from them," a Democratic Senate aide said. AIPAC is shorthand
for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington's
best-known pro-Israel lobby group.
Obama
started by reaching out to Congress in their house and his: He sent
envoys, including Secretary of State John Kerry, to Capitol Hill, and he
invited key players to a White House meeting to make a case that
independent Sen. Angus King of Maine labeled "incredibly powerful."
But
outreach on Iran is nothing new. What is different this time is that,
unlike with past rounds of sanctions against Iran where the interplay
has been more theoretical, the Islamic republic is actually at the
negotiating table, at least going through the motions of entertaining
the dismantling of its nuclear-weapons capabilities. Tremendous
skepticism remains that the talks will ultimately work—including from
inside the administration—but the ongoing talks at least give concerned
senators an alternative.
And
then there was the resurgent progressive movement that capitalized on a
war-weary public to push Democrats in Obama's direction.
MoveOn.org,
Daily Kos,
The Huffington Post,
and other liberal media outlets have mobilized against Democrats who
supported sanctions, accusing them of undermining Obama with
warmongering and asking, "Where's the antiwar Left?"
Finally,
Obama was the beneficiary of weakened opposition. The Israel lobby has
succeeded in influencing Iran policy for decades, but it's currently in a
state of upheaval. AIPAC has not been beating down doors canvassing
Capitol Hill in a concerted campaign as it has in the past, and J
Street—AIPAC's younger, rising counterweight—
is making the case against sanctions.
"The
bottom line is that more and more members want to give the
administration the space they are asking for to try to negotiate a deal
with Iran. If it doesn't work they'll begin to ratchet up the sanctions
more," a former senior Democratic Senate aide said. "I believe the
administration now has the space they are looking for."
Another Senate aide agreed that outside forces are making a difference.
"The
president's base has gone all-in with his party, cashed in every chit
possible, applied every possible pressure point on Democrats, used
messaging and rhetoric that fires up the liberal base, and activated
grass roots to target Democrats and make them afraid of this bill from
the left," said the aide. "Unfortunately it's turned it partisan, and
we'll see if Republicans will take the next step."
The
impact of Democrats growing gun-shy could have implications for the GOP
agenda. The House passed additional sanctions against Iran in July,
before the current negotiations were announced. House GOP leaders have
since flirted with bringing up the pending Senate sanctions bill, but
have been concerned about losing Democrats and thus losing any impact by
turning an intended bipartisan message partisan. At the same time,
House Republican leaders have struggled to convince senior Democrats to
push forward a less controversial, bipartisan nonbinding resolution on
Iran.
Matthew
Duss, a policy analyst with the liberal Center for American Progress,
argued that the outreach from liberal groups has made an impact by
tapping into war fatigue.
"Without
question, there has been great work done by progressive organizations,
communicating with policymakers and legislators some of the problems
with the sanctions bill and urging the activists and grassroots
community and constituents to call their own elected members," he said.
"You've seen the resurrection of elements of the Iraq War Coalition on
the left who remember that we got ourselves into a huge mess in the
Middle East are sending this message: 'Let's not do that again.' That's a
very strong motivating factor."
Democratic
operatives tracking the issue said that as Democrats have had time to
digest the legislation, the details have given them cold feet. The bill,
for example, does more than simply impose additional sanctions if Iran
breaks its agreement. It also calls for authorizing military force to
support Israel in any military conflict against Iran.
"The
recognition that the language was so broadly written that passage of
the legislation could in fact lead to the possibility of a confrontation
with Iran is what tipped the scales," the former senior Democratic
Senate aide said. "That language was written pretty strongly. The more
folks delved into it, the more concerned they became that it puts the
U.S. in a very aggressive posture. Everyone wants to do everything they
can to support Israel, but more folks are beginning to look inwards
again and are very war-weary."
Of
the 59 cosponsors on the legislation, 16 are Democrats. But it is hard
to find any Democratic cosponsor who is eager to talk about the bill
these days. Many dodged questions, while others such as Sens. Richard
Blumenthal of Connecticut, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Christopher
Coons of Delaware, and Ben Cardin of Maryland are frank that they are
not pushing for a vote.
Manchin
said he intended the bill to send a message of support for Israel and
underscore a goal of upending Iran's nuclear-weapons ambitions. But he
said that a vote could actually cost his sponsorship of the bill.
"I
never intended for that bill to come to a vote and debate," he said.
"If they start moving it forward I might need to start making a decision
about whether I stay on the bill or not."
Even
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, who is the
lead Democrat sponsoring sanctions legislation, is noncommittal about
whether he wants to see his bill become law.
When asked if it was still his goal to push for a vote on the bill, he sidestepped.
"It
is still my intention to work to ensure that Iran doesn't get
nuclear-weapons capability, which is different than just nuclear
weapons," he said. "So we are considering everything including perusing
the sanctions that we've laid out at some point in time to achieve that
goal to make sure they don't."
He declined to elaborate on what other course of action he might consider.
Sen.
Bob Menendez is pushing forward with legislation to impose new economic
sanctions on Iran, a move that could kill the Obama administration’s
negotiations to strictly limit Iran’s nuclear program and verify those
limits with international inspections.
