

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Mana Mostatabi, 202.386.6325 x103, mmostatabi@niacouncil.org
Following the Trump administration's disastrous decision to reimpose nuclear-related sanctions on Iran, 2020 contenders, former policymakers, and experts have all urged a return to U.S. compliance with the landmark nonproliferation accord. This growing consensus highlights the dangers of the Trump administration's approach and the need to restore U.S. diplomatic credibility by returning to compliance with the 2015 bargain.
Following the Trump administration's disastrous decision to reimpose nuclear-related sanctions on Iran, 2020 contenders, former policymakers, and experts have all urged a return to U.S. compliance with the landmark nonproliferation accord. This growing consensus highlights the dangers of the Trump administration's approach and the need to restore U.S. diplomatic credibility by returning to compliance with the 2015 bargain.
In November, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) published a key report making the case for reentry, entitled "Restoring U.S. Credibility: Returning to the Iran Nuclear Agreement."
Below, please see selected support for this important position:
Major 2020 Contenders
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): "If Iran maintains itself in compliance, then I believe the President should reverse his reckless decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal and reimpose sanctions because the deal makes America safer and the world safer."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT): "A Sanders aide said that "as president, Sen. Sanders would rejoin the JCPOA and would also be prepared to talk to Iran on a range of other issues, which is what Trump should've done instead of simply walking away. Rejoining the JCPOA would mean meeting the United States' commitments under the agreement, and that includes sanctions relief.""
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-MA). Harris "would rejoin the Iran deal if the US could verify Iran is not cheating and is complying with the strict requirements detailed in the agreement," said a spokesman for the senator. "She believes we must engage in tough, forceful diplomacy to combat Iran's destabilizing behavior in the region," her spokesman said.
Julian Castro: "The Iran Nuclear Agreement was a landmark achievement that prevented a nuclear-armed Iran for more than 3 years. If Iran continues to comply with the terms of the agreement as determined by the intelligence community, I will re-enter the U.S. into the #JCPOA as President."
Democratic National Committee Resolution
DNC: "[r]eturning to the JCPOA will restore America's commitment to an agreement made with allies and prevent a renewed nuclear crisis in the Middle East."
Current and Former U.S. Officials
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT): "We need to get back into the Iran nuclear agreement and we need to do it fast...The fact of the matter is Europe has been trying desperately to keep Iran in the deal by continuing to keep open economic channels between European countries and Iran. But Iran is only going to hold to the deal for so long. At some point, if the United States violated the terms, Iran is going to violate the terms...if we don't get back into that agreement, that at some point Iran will restart their nuclear weapons program."
Mara Karlin and Tamara Cofman Wittes, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development and former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs: "The United States should return to the agreement and continue efforts to roll back Iran's bad behavior both alone and with partners."
Ned Price, former Special Assistant to President Obama for National Security Affairs: "[T]he new Democratic House now has the oversight tools to spotlight and constrain the administration's recklessness, just as we begin to clear the path for the next administration's reentry into the deal. There may be tactical disagreements regarding how to most effectively confront Iran's destabilizing regional activities, but there must be a strategic recognition that only the JCPOA provides a baseline that allows us to achieve our most important objective: a nuclear weapons-free Iran."
Lawrence Wilkerson, Col, USA (Ret), former chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell: "[W]ithout a resumption of our agreed responsibilities under the JCPOA, alliances will fracture, de-dollarization movements will proceed apace, enemies will gain ground, and Iran will not be substantially prevented from acquiring a nuclear weapon. War could even result. The wonder is that the U.S. withdrew from the agreement in the first place; even more of a marvel-but entirely wise and proper-would be a successful return. Every concerned party should be working toward that end."
Over 50 retired generals and ambassadors: "Subsequent to the United States' withdrawal from the deal, Iran's continued compliance is not ensured and the benefits from the agreement risk being lost. Reentering the Iran nuclear deal advances the United States' national interests by ensuring these benefits persist and enables us to work more closely with our European allies... Re-entry into the nuclear deal will contribute to establishing a broader U.S. national strategy for the Middle East... Reaffirming leadership in this area will improve the ability of the U.S. to develop and lead a multilateral effort to contain the Iranian threat."
Organizations
Over 50 pro-diplomacy groups: "Pro-diplomacy groups representing millions of American voters urge lawmakers to publicly articulate and support the following principles with respect to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that verifiably blocks each of Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon and created a much-needed diplomatic relationship between Iran, the United States, and U.S. allies: Support for the JCPOA and returning the United States to compliance with the agreement...Support for good faith diplomacy toward additional agreements as the preferred basis for addressing further concerns about Iranian activity."
International Crisis Group: "As the 2020 election season gets underway, Democratic candidates could affirm their intent to rejoin the JCPOA as long as Iran abides by its own obligations. Doing so would send a message to the Iranian leadership that sticking to their nuclear commitments is indeed the wiser approach."
Experts
Robert Malley, President of the International Crisis Group: "I think the better way forward is to rejoin the nuclear deal, that's a subject for maybe the next administration, and to use that model - without any illusions, without any naivete about how quickly relations are going to change - but understanding that Iran does have a place in the region that people are going to have to take into account....Once we have the nuclear deal reestablished, the next topic is to try to understand how you could have a security architecture in which Saudi Arabia, the Gulf's, Iran's, other interests can be accommodated."
Ellie Geranmayeh, Deputy Head MENA program at The European Council on Foreign Relations: "President Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the JCPOA, after months of negotiations with European allies earlier this year on pathways to sustain the agreement, was significantly damaging for transatlantic ties. This wound has been deepened by the manner in which the White House has sidelined European security interests and tried to impede their efforts to preserve the JCPOA, as enshrined by a UN Security Council. This report highlights the urgent need for the US executive and legislative branch to reassure European allies that in matters of foreign policy, the United States is a credible and consistent partner. Moreover, the US should reassure European capitals and companies that US sanctions policy will not seek to illegitimately target allies in pursuit of a maximalist policy that is unlikely to trigger fundamental changes in Iranian behaviour."
Hooman Majd, Iranian-American writer: "It almost goes without saying that the best option for de-escalating tensions in the Middle East, and preventing nuclear proliferation, is for the U.S. to return to the JCPOA nuclear accord. It is unimaginable that Iran would agree to a new deal--or indeed any other deal on other issues of contention--without the U.S. first abiding by the commitments that it made when it signed on, along with five other powers, to the nuclear deal with Iran."
Barbara Slavin, Director of the Future of Iran Initiative at The Atlantic Council: "An obvious first step is to return the US to compliance with the JCPOA in a package of executive orders that also reverses other counterproductive decisions, such as the "Muslim" ban, which disproportionately hurts Iranians and Iranian-Americans. For the longer term, however, the US should seek early negotiations with Iran and P5+1 partners on a JCPOA 2.0 that establishes a firmer foundation for non-proliferation and conflict resolution in the Middle East."
Narges Bajoghli, Assistant Professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies: "It is crucial for America's standing in the world that we work to re-enter the JCPOA in the near future. This report provides concrete steps that Congress can take now to ensure that we return to the promises we made to the international community. Without doing so, America will continue to act as a force of instability in the Middle East."
Farideh Farhi, Independent Scholar and Affiliate Graduate Faculty at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa: "The Trump Administration's ill-conceived rejection of the JCPOA and policy of 'maximum pressure' can no doubt inflict pain on the Iranian people. It can also court disaster in risking Iran's resumption of its nuclear activities, further destabilization of the Middle East, and possibly even another costly US war in the region. Remaining quiet in the face of these predictable harms is not an option. This report offers timely and reasonable recommendations for keeping the JCPOA alive as a pathway for the re-emergence of a saner approach to Iran."
Bijan Khajehpour, economist and a managing partner at Eurasian Nexus Partners: "The US rejoining the JCPOA and helping to sustain a multilateral agreement will not only reduce the likelihood of an unnecessary nuclear arms race in the Middle East, but also prevent a radicalisation of Iranian politics. A moderate Iran is important for regional stability, the containment of jihadist movements and the future energy security for US allies globally."
Nicholas Miller, Assistant Professor of Government at Dartmouth College: "The JCPOA has successfully curtailed Iran's nuclear program and remains the surest tool for preventing an Iranian bomb. The new Congress should do what it can to limit the serious damage done by the Trump administration's withdrawal from the deal. If the administration's 'maximum pressure' campaign continues to escalate, the odds increase that Iran will exit the agreement and move closer to a nuclear weapon, which could in turn spark a costly war."
Paul Pillar, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University: "Candidates and legislators of all political persuasions would do well to read and heed this report. The Trump administration's abandonment of arms control and diplomacy in favor of conflict and confrontation has brought the United States only isolation and infamy as well as heightened risk of war. It is not too late to return to compliance with the JCPOA and to a course that demonstrably serves U.S. interests better than the current policy does."
NIAC Action is the grassroots, civic action organization committed to advancing peace and championing the priorities of the Iranian-American community. We are a nonpartisan nonprofit and the 501(c)4 sister organization of the National Iranian American Council, which works to strengthen the Iranian-American community and promote greater understanding between the American and Iranian people.
One senior Iranian official said his country is considering resuming strikes to put Israel's "aggressor regime in its place," while others warned Iran might quit the shaky ceasefire altogether.
Iran said Wednesday that it is blocking shipping through the Strait of Hormuz over Israel's escalating bombardment of Lebanon, actions that are threatening to unravel the tenuous ceasefire agreed to less than a day ago.
Fars, an Iranian state media outlet, reported that “simultaneous with Israel’s attacks on Lebanon, the passage of oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz has been stopped," while Reuters said that "more than 180 tankers believed to be inside [the] strait, with hundreds more waiting" for access.
The developments came after two tankers were reportedly allowed to pass through the vital waterway—through which around 20% of the world's oil is shipped—in the wake of Tuesday's ceasefire agreement between the United States, Israel, and Iran.
While Israel accepted the two-week truce, it insists that the agreement does not apply to its ongoing war on Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran counters that halting attacks on Lebanon is one of the 10 points in the Pakistan-brokered deal, which Israel is violating.
Over the past 24 hours, Israeli forces have ramped up their already intense bombing of Lebanon to levels described as "apocalyptic." Lebanon's Health Ministry said at least 254 people have been killed and 1,165 others wounded by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) bombing throughout the country, with some official sources telling media outlets that as many as 300 people have been killed.
More than 100 sites across Lebanon were reportedly bombed within a period of just minutes, including densely populated urban areas. In southern Lebanon, the dead include 12 medics, according to officials cited by Reuters.
Israeli forces have targeted civilian structures including apartment towers, claiming without providing evidence they were being used by Hezebollah.
Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam on Wednesday implored sympathetic nations to put pressure on Israel to stop the bombing.
"All of Lebanon's friends are called upon to help us stop these attacks by all available means," he said.
Iran's Press TV reported Wednesday that Iranian leaders are considering resuming full-scale counterattacks in response to Israel's escalation. According to the outlet, a senior Iranian official said that the time has come to "put this aggressor regime in its place."
Iranian and international media outlets also reported Wednesday that Iran might withdraw from the ceasefire altogether if Israel keeps bombing Lebanon.
“The conditions for a ceasefire between Iran and the United States are clear and explicit: America must choose either a ceasefire or the continuation of war through Israel; both cannot coexist,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote on Telegram. “The world is witnessing the killings in Lebanon. Now the ball is in America’s court, and global public opinion is watching to see whether this country will fulfill its commitments or not.”
In a Wednesday interview with Al Jazeera, Israeli political commentator Ori Goldberg described Israel's intensified attacks on Lebanon as “a pyrotechnics show meant to demonstrate Israel’s effectiveness while ultimately demonstrating its despair."
“The only entity that can stop it is the international community that will defend Lebanon’s sovereign rights, which have been violated for decades but are now almost nonexistent,” he said.
Goldberg added that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "bet it all" on US President Donald Trump and "lost."
Some Israeli leaders, especially on the far-right, are reportedly furious over their exclusion from Trump's decision to suspend attacks on Iran.
"He thought he could keep Trump on a short leash," Goldberg said of Netanyahu. "He messed that up. So now what he has is Lebanon, which has been Israel’s favorite stomping ground in terms of sovereignty violation and aggression generally."
Since the 1980s, Israeli forces have killed more than 20,000 people, many of them civilians, in Lebanon. Israeli forces have occupied parts of Lebanon several times, including for the last 18 years of the 20th century. Some right-wing Israelis want their country to conquer some or even all of Lebanon, which they consider part of a "Greater Israel" promised to them by their deity figure.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz—who, like Netanyahu, stands accused in an International Court of Justice case of inciting genocide in Gaza—said Wednesday that "the IDF carried out a surprise strike on hundreds of Hezbollah terrorists at command centers across Lebanon" in what he called "the largest concentrated blow Hezbollah has suffered since Operation Beepers," when dozens of people including children were killed by booby-trapped exploding communication devices.
Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, Katz's predecessor, are wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, where 29 months of Israeli war and siege have left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing and the Gaza Strip in ruins. More than 700 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since a ceasefire took effect there six months ago.
Regional and international observers condemned Israel's escalation in Lebanon, which Iraqi government spokesperson Bassem al-Awadi called "evidence of its hostile plan to sabotage the truce" and "perpetuate conflict."
Qatar's Ministry of Foreign Affairs called on the international community "to fulfill its responsibilities by compelling the Israeli occupation authorities to halt their barbaric massacres and repeated attacks on Lebanon, and to hold them accountable for respecting international covenants and laws.”
"I’m grateful there’s a ceasefire and scores of innocent people didn’t die tonight," said Rep. Yassamin Ansari, the only Iranian-American member of Congress.
With a potential US nuclear attack against Iran's 93 million people averted by the ceasefire deal that was reached Tuesday evening, anti-war advocates including the only Iranian American member of Congress urged the Democratic Party to focus first and foremost on the fact that through diplomacy, President Donald Trump had been led away from the brink of disaster—instead of using the high-stakes moment to to score political points.
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) cautioned against members of either political party joking that Trump had "chickened out" after threatening the "whole civilization" of Iran on Tuesday, hours before the deadline he had set for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which it effectively closed in retaliation for the unprovoked US-Israeli invasion of the country at the end of February.
Taking aim at the use of the acronym "TACO"—for "Trump Always Chickens Out," coined by a Financial Times columnist last year—Ansari issued a reminder that "the president was threatening genocide against 90 million Iranians."
"I’m grateful there’s a ceasefire and scores of innocent people didn’t die tonight," said Ansari.
Branko Marchetich of Jacobin called on Democratic leaders to take "their cues" from Ansari, adding, "There is nothing shameful about de-escalation and peace."
The congresswoman spoke out as Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), whose name has been floated as a potential presidential candidate in 2028, expressed outrage at the 10-point plan the US, Israel, and Iran agreed upon as a starting point for negotiations over the next two weeks as Trump backed off his threat to annihilate Iran.
Al Jazeera's James Bays reported that the 10-point plan allows limited daily passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz for the next two weeks "in coordination with the Iranian armed forces; cancellation of sanctions against Iran; the US and Israel's acceptance of Iran's nuclear enrichment program; and full compensation for damages suffered by Iran during the war, to be secured through payments to Iran by ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
Murphy called the deal's inclusion of Iranian control of the strait "cataclysmic" and "extraordinary," while author and attorney Chase Madar argued the outcome is "considerably less awful than what Trump was promising to do on Easter," when he pledged to attack civilian infrastructure across Iran.
"Let's hope Democrats don't bait Trump back into this war," said Ryan Grim of Drop Site News.
On social media and in a CNN interview, Murphy also railed against reports that the deal allows Iran to "keep their missiles," which the Trump administration had been intent on destroying—although the country was permitted to have ballistic missiles under the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump exited during his first term.
"Anyone who thinks Iran's having conventional ballistic missiles isn't acceptable—and this tweet suggests that's Murphy's position—shouldn't be president," said Robert Wright of NonZero Newsletter. "Murphy is shamelessly playing politics at a delicate moment in world history."
The senator rejected criticism from those who said he was being insufficiently laudatory of the ceasefire, arguing that being "glad if this ceasefire holds" is "not inconsistent with pointing out that we are worse off now than before the war started."
Iran's control of the strait is expected to result in higher global oil and gas prices and inflation; since it closed the key waterway over a month ago, US gas prices have risen above $4 per gallon.
On Wednesday, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, joined Murphy in denouncing the deal that allows Iran to retain missiles and continue enriching uranium.
"Leading Senate foreign policy Dem attacks Trump for not achieving his goals... in his criminal war of aggression against Iran," said Erik Sperling of Just Foreign Policy. "The only acceptable goal is immediately ending the illegal war, Senator!"
Sperling noted that prior to the ceasefire deal, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) had spoken with clarity on CNN about the need for Democratic lawmakers to refrain from "play[ing] politics" as the Trump administration engages in brinkmanship with Iran while continuing negotiations.
"There's too much at stake," said Khanna. "I'm going to say, 'Thank you, finally, diplomacy prevailed.'"
“This is really setting a precedent,” said one activist. "This is something that other communities can look to."
The nationwide backlash against the artificial intelligence industry entered a new stage on Tuesday after a small Wisconsin city overwhelmingly passed a first-of-its-kind referendum limiting AI data center construction.
According to a Wednesday report in Politico, voters in the Milwaukee suburb of Port Washington, home to roughly 12,000 residents, supported the data center restrictions by a margin of around 2-to-1.
The referendus requires town officials to seek voter permission before approving or providing tax incentives for any future data centers in the community, giving residents veto power over new projects.
Port Washington is already home to a $15 billion, 1.3-gigawatt data center funded by tech giants Oracle and OpenAI, and local residents wanted to ensure that no additional facilities are green lit without their express approval.
The referendum was pushed by a grassroots community organization called Great Lakes Neighbors United, which advocates "advancing transparency, environmental stewardship, and responsible development in Wisconsin."
Christine Le Jeune, founder of Great Lakes Neighbors United, told Politico that she hopes the work done limiting AI facilities' construction can be replicated nationwide.
“This is really setting a precedent,” Le Jeune, said. "This is something that other communities can look to."
Politico noted that similar anti-data center measures are coming up for votes later this year in communities across the US, including in Monterey Park, California; Augusta Township, Michigan; and Janesville, Wisconsin.
Opposition to AI data centers has become a major political issue in recent months, as local residents have objected to the large facilities consuming massive amounts of electricity and water, while also generating significant noise pollution.
Data centers also put a major strain on the US electrical grid, causing a spike in utility bills across the country. PJM Interconnection, the largest US grid operator that serves over 65 million people across 13 states, projected earlier this year that it will be a full six gigawatts short of its reliability requirements in 2027 thanks to the demands of data centers.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) introduced a bill in March that would impose a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction “until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment.”
At the same time, the AI industry is planning on spending big money in 2026 to influence elections, with the goal of passing legislation setting a single set of AI regulations that will take effect throughout the US, overriding any restrictions placed on the technology by state governments.
CNN reported in February that Leading the Future—a super political action committee (PAC) backed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, is pledging to spend at least $100 million to ensure AI-friendly candidates get elected to Congress this year.