SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Hillary Clinton smiles with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington to become the next U.S. Secretary of State, January 13, 2009. (Photo: Reuters)
Hillary's Better on Iran Diplomacy Than Key Senate Democrats - and Rand Paul
Apr 13, 2015
Do you remember when Rand Paul was threatening to run for President to Hillary Clinton's left on war and peace? It seems like ancient history now, doesn't it?
When the Administration announced the framework deal on Iran's nuclear program, Hillary backed it right away. It was "3 AM," as it were, and Hillary was waiting by the phone. (It wasn't really 3 AM, but the deal was announced on Thursday and Hillary made her statement Thursday evening; compared to many Senate Democrats, she responded right away.)
Rand Paul, on the other hand, signed the letter to Iran of the Cotton 47 threatening to kill any deal. But far worse in terms of practical impact, Rand Paul is a backer of the Corker-Menendez bill, the main legislative vehicle of Republicans trying to kill the talks, which would allow Congressional Republicans to veto the deal. The Corker bill as written could prove to be a de facto authorization for military force against Iran, because if the Corker bill succeeds in blowing up diplomacy, we're on a highway to war with no apparent exit ramp.
So, as we move towards 2016, Rand Paul is becoming just another pro-war Republican on national security issues, while Hillary is now playing a key role on the Democratic pro-diplomacy team.
But reality at present is more sobering than that, because there are a bunch of key Senate Democrats who are not yet on the pro-diplomacy team; they're not as good as Hillary right now. Some of them are playing for the pro-war team right now, some are silent so far, and some are playing both sides of the fence.
The most prominent of the Senate Democrats playing on the pro-war team right now is New York Democrat and apparent Minority-Leader-In-Waiting Chuck Schumer. But he is not alone. Less prominent now since being indicted on federal corruption charges but still vocal is New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez.
Playing both sides of the fence is Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal. He slammed the framework deal in a New York radio interview on Sunday and said that's why he's supporting the Corker bill; but he has also said "I hope there will be no interference or impeding impact on the negotiation," even though the purpose of the Corker bill is to kill the deal.
On the apparently silent team so far is Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey. He is generally considered a friend of the arms control community, which is strongly backing the framework deal. Markey's apparent silence is particularly remarkable because he serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is expected on Tuesday to formally consider the Corker-Menendez bill.
You can urge your Senators to oppose the Corker-Menendez bill here. If your Senator happens to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, you can call them here.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
Do you remember when Rand Paul was threatening to run for President to Hillary Clinton's left on war and peace? It seems like ancient history now, doesn't it?
When the Administration announced the framework deal on Iran's nuclear program, Hillary backed it right away. It was "3 AM," as it were, and Hillary was waiting by the phone. (It wasn't really 3 AM, but the deal was announced on Thursday and Hillary made her statement Thursday evening; compared to many Senate Democrats, she responded right away.)
Rand Paul, on the other hand, signed the letter to Iran of the Cotton 47 threatening to kill any deal. But far worse in terms of practical impact, Rand Paul is a backer of the Corker-Menendez bill, the main legislative vehicle of Republicans trying to kill the talks, which would allow Congressional Republicans to veto the deal. The Corker bill as written could prove to be a de facto authorization for military force against Iran, because if the Corker bill succeeds in blowing up diplomacy, we're on a highway to war with no apparent exit ramp.
So, as we move towards 2016, Rand Paul is becoming just another pro-war Republican on national security issues, while Hillary is now playing a key role on the Democratic pro-diplomacy team.
But reality at present is more sobering than that, because there are a bunch of key Senate Democrats who are not yet on the pro-diplomacy team; they're not as good as Hillary right now. Some of them are playing for the pro-war team right now, some are silent so far, and some are playing both sides of the fence.
The most prominent of the Senate Democrats playing on the pro-war team right now is New York Democrat and apparent Minority-Leader-In-Waiting Chuck Schumer. But he is not alone. Less prominent now since being indicted on federal corruption charges but still vocal is New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez.
Playing both sides of the fence is Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal. He slammed the framework deal in a New York radio interview on Sunday and said that's why he's supporting the Corker bill; but he has also said "I hope there will be no interference or impeding impact on the negotiation," even though the purpose of the Corker bill is to kill the deal.
On the apparently silent team so far is Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey. He is generally considered a friend of the arms control community, which is strongly backing the framework deal. Markey's apparent silence is particularly remarkable because he serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is expected on Tuesday to formally consider the Corker-Menendez bill.
You can urge your Senators to oppose the Corker-Menendez bill here. If your Senator happens to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, you can call them here.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
Do you remember when Rand Paul was threatening to run for President to Hillary Clinton's left on war and peace? It seems like ancient history now, doesn't it?
When the Administration announced the framework deal on Iran's nuclear program, Hillary backed it right away. It was "3 AM," as it were, and Hillary was waiting by the phone. (It wasn't really 3 AM, but the deal was announced on Thursday and Hillary made her statement Thursday evening; compared to many Senate Democrats, she responded right away.)
Rand Paul, on the other hand, signed the letter to Iran of the Cotton 47 threatening to kill any deal. But far worse in terms of practical impact, Rand Paul is a backer of the Corker-Menendez bill, the main legislative vehicle of Republicans trying to kill the talks, which would allow Congressional Republicans to veto the deal. The Corker bill as written could prove to be a de facto authorization for military force against Iran, because if the Corker bill succeeds in blowing up diplomacy, we're on a highway to war with no apparent exit ramp.
So, as we move towards 2016, Rand Paul is becoming just another pro-war Republican on national security issues, while Hillary is now playing a key role on the Democratic pro-diplomacy team.
But reality at present is more sobering than that, because there are a bunch of key Senate Democrats who are not yet on the pro-diplomacy team; they're not as good as Hillary right now. Some of them are playing for the pro-war team right now, some are silent so far, and some are playing both sides of the fence.
The most prominent of the Senate Democrats playing on the pro-war team right now is New York Democrat and apparent Minority-Leader-In-Waiting Chuck Schumer. But he is not alone. Less prominent now since being indicted on federal corruption charges but still vocal is New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez.
Playing both sides of the fence is Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal. He slammed the framework deal in a New York radio interview on Sunday and said that's why he's supporting the Corker bill; but he has also said "I hope there will be no interference or impeding impact on the negotiation," even though the purpose of the Corker bill is to kill the deal.
On the apparently silent team so far is Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey. He is generally considered a friend of the arms control community, which is strongly backing the framework deal. Markey's apparent silence is particularly remarkable because he serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is expected on Tuesday to formally consider the Corker-Menendez bill.
You can urge your Senators to oppose the Corker-Menendez bill here. If your Senator happens to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, you can call them here.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.