

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.
"The American public is demanding decisive action to end US complicity in the Israeli government’s war crimes by stopping the flow of weapons to Israel."
Jewish Voice for Peace Action on Friday led a coalition of groups demanding that the Democratic Party stop providing arms to the Israeli government.
Speaking outside the Democratic National Committee’s Winter Meeting in Los Angeles, Jewish Voice for Peace Action (JVP Action) held a press conference calling on Democrats to oppose all future weapons shipments to Israel, whose years-long assault on Gaza has, according to one estimate, killed more than 100,000 Palestinian people.
While carrying banners that read, "Stop Arming Israel," speakers at the press conference also called on Democrats to reject money from the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC), which has consistently funded primary challenges against left-wing critics of Israel.
JVP Action was joined at the press conference by representatives from Health Care 4 US (HC4US), Progressive Democrats of America, the Council on American-Islamic Relations Action (CAIR Action), and the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) Board of Directors.
Estee Chandler, founder of the Los Angeles chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, warned Democrats at the press conference that they risked falling out of touch with public opinion if they continued to support giving weapons to Israel.
"The polls are clear,” Chandler said. "The American public is demanding decisive action to end US complicity in the Israeli government’s war crimes by stopping the flow of weapons to Israel, and the Democratic Party refusing to heed that call will continue to come at their own peril."
The press conference came a day after the progressive advocacy group RootsAction and journalist Christopher D. Cook released an "autopsy" report of the Democratic Party's crushing 2024 losses, finding that the party's support for Israel's assault on Gaza contributed to last year's election results.
Chandler also called on Democrats to get behind the Block the Bombs Act, which currently has 58 sponsors, and which she said "would block the transfer of the worst offensive weapons from being sent to Israel, including bombs, tank rounds, and artillery shells that are US-supplied and have been involved in the mass killing of Palestinian civilians and the grossest violations of international law in Gaza."
Although there has technically been a ceasefire in place in Gaza since October, Israeli forces have continued to conduct deadly military operations in the enclave that have killed hundreds of civilians, including dozens of children.
Ricardo Pires, a spokesperson for the United Nations Children’s Fund, said last month that the number of deaths in Gaza in recent weeks has been "staggering" given that they've happened "during an agreed ceasefire."
"She can't even be effective as a shill," said one critic of the ex-senator's lobbying.
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was among those celebrating after the Chandler, Arizona City Council on Thursday night unanimously rejected an artificial intelligence data center project promoted by former US Sen. Kyrsten Sinema.
"Good!" Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) simply said on social media Friday.
The defeat of the proposed $2.5 billion project comes as hundreds of advocacy groups and progressive leaders, including US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), are urging opponents of energy-sucking AI data centers across the United States to keep pressuring local, state, and federal leaders over climate, economic, environmental, and water concerns.
In Chandler, "the nearly 43,000-square-foot data center on the corner of Price and Dobson roads would have been the 11th data center in the Price Road Corridor, an area known for employers like Intel and Wells Fargo," the Arizona Republic reported.
The newspaper noted that around 300 people attended Thursday's meeting—many holding signs protesting the project—and city spokesperson Matthew Burdick said that the government received 256 comments opposing the data center.
Although Sinema skipped the debate on Thursday, the ex-senator—who frequently thwarted Democratic priorities on Capitol Hill and ultimately ditched the party before leaving office—previously attended a planning and zoning commission meeting in Chandler to push for the project. That stunt earned her the title of "cartoon villain."
Sinema critics again took aim at her after the 7-0 vote, saying that "she can't even be effective as a shill" and "Sinema went all in to lobby for a data center in Chandler, Arizona and the council told her to get rekt."
Progressive commentator Krystal Ball declared: "Kyrsten Sinema data center L. Love to see it."
Politico noted Friday that "several other Arizona cities, including Phoenix and Tucson, have written zoning rules for data centers or placed new requirements on the facilities. Local officials in cities in Oregon, Missouri, Virginia, Arizona, and Indiana have also rejected planned data centers."
Janos Marton, chief advocacy officer at Dream.Org, said: "Another big win in Arizona, following Tucson's rejection of a data center. When communities are organized they can fight back and win. Don't accept data centers that hide their impacts behind NDAs, drive up energy prices, and bring pollution to local neighborhoods."
When Sinema lobbied for the Chandler data center in October, she cited President Donald Trump's push for such projects.
"The AI Action Plan, set out by the Trump administration, says very clearly that we must continue to proliferate AI and AI data centers throughout the country," she said at the time. "So federal preemption is coming. Chandler right now has the opportunity to determine how and when these new, innovative AI data centers will be built."
Trump on Thursday signed an executive order (EO) intended to block states from enforcing their own AI regulations.
"I understand the president has issued an EO. I think that is yet to play itself out," Chandler Mayor Kevin Hartke reportedly said after the city vote. "Really, this is a land use question, not [about] policies related to data centers."
“In my country, I prosecuted terrorists and drug lords," said Judge Luz Ibáñez Carranza of Peru. "I will continue my work."
International Criminal Court judges remain steadfast in their pursuit of justice—including for victims of Israel's genocidal war on Gaza—even as they suffer from devastating US sanctions, some of the affected jurists said in recent interviews.
Nine ICC officials are under sanctions imposed in two waves earlier this year by the Trump administration following the Hague-based tribunal's issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation. The tribunal also issued warrants for the arrest of three Hamas officials, all of whom have been killed by Israel during the course of the war.
The sanctioned jurists are: Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan (United Kingdom), Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan (Fiji), Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang (Senegal), Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda), Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza (Peru), Judge Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini-Gansou (Benin), Judge Beti Hohler (Slovenia), Judge Nicolas Yann Guillou (France), and Judge Kimberly Prost (Canada).
The sanctions followed a February executive order from US President Donald Trump sanctioning Khan and accusing the ICC of “baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel.”
The sanctions—which experts have called an act of criminal obstruction—prevent the targeted ICC officials and their relatives from entering the United States; cut off their access to financial services including banking and credit cards; and prohibit the use of online services like email, shopping, and booking sites.
Fearing steep fines and other punitive measures including possible imprisonment for running afoul of US sanctions by providing “financial, material, or technological support" to targeted individuals, businesses and other entities strictly blacklist sanctioned people—who are typically terrorists, organized crime leaders, and political or military leaders accused of serious human rights crimes.
“Your whole world is restricted,” Prost—who was part of an ICC appellate chamber's unanimous 2020 decision to investigate alleged US war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan—told the Associated Press on Thursday. “I’ve worked all my life in criminal justice, and now I’m on a list with those implicated in terrorism and organized crime."
Ibáñez Carranza said the US sanctions are not deterring her, telling the AP: “In my country, I prosecuted terrorists and drug lords. I will continue my work."
Guillou told Le Monde last week that the sanctions mean he is banned from almost all digital services—including Amazon and PayPal—in a world dominated by US tech giants. This has led to some absurd scenarios, including having a hotel reservation he booked via Expedia in his own country canceled.
"To be under sanctions is like being transported back to the 1990s," he said.
The Trump administration's objective, said Guillou, is "intimidation... permanent fear, and powerlessness."
"European citizens under US sanctions will be wiped out economically and socially within the [European Union]," he added.
Guillou remains defiant in the face of sweeping hardship caused by the sanctions, contending that he is part of a larger struggle for justice as, "empires are hitting back" in response to "three decades of progress in multilateralism."
The US—which, like Israel, is not party to the Rome Statute that governs the ICC—has been at odds with the court for decades. In 2002, Congress passed, and then-President George W. Bush signed, the American Service Members’ Protection Act—also known as the Hague Invasion Act—which authorizes the president to use “all means necessary and appropriate” including military intervention to secure the release of American or allied personnel held by or on behalf of the ICC.
During his first term, Trump sanctioned then-ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and Prosecution Jurisdiction Division Director Phakiso Mochochoko over the Afghan war crimes probe.
The nine jurists sanctioned this year by the US are seeking relief and are calling on European governments to invoke the EU's so-called "Blocking Statute," which is meant to shield officials of the 27-nation bloc from the extraterritorial application of third country laws.
"States parties [to the Rome Statute] face a choice: Continue to capitulate to the bullying of the US, or meet the challenge posed by the sanctions, past and future, and respond appropriately," Jens Iverson, an assistant professor of international law at Leiden University in the Netherlands, wrote last month for OpinioJuris. "Which choice they make will reveal the actual values of the states who as a matter of law are pledged to combat atrocity and impunity."
Ibáñez Carranza told Middle East Eye in a recent interview: "What we are asking are practical measures. What we are asking is action. We need the support of the entire world. But we are in Europe now, and Europe is a powerful structure. The European Union is a powerful structure. They should react as such. They cannot be subordinated to the American policies."
International Criminal Court (ICC) judge Luz del Carmen Ibanez Carranza has called on the international community to stand with ICC judges following US-imposed sanctions over the court’s arrest warrants for Israeli officials pic.twitter.com/otJfwHgzdw
— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) December 6, 2025
Ibáñez Carranza said that said measures should be taken "to support the court, not only to support the judges, but to support the system... of Rome."
"It's not only the judges" who are affected by the US sanctions, she asserted. "They want to affect the system of Rome, the system of the court, where we deliver justice for... the most defenseless and vulnerable victims... They are the affected ones with this."
"The work of the International Criminal Court is for humanity," Ibáñez Carranza added. "And this is why we are resilient, and this is why we need not only to stand together as judges, but the entire international community."