Want smart analysis of the most important news in your inbox every weekday along with other global reads, interesting ideas and opinions to know? Sign up for the Today’s WorldView newsletter.
It’s no secret that President Trump is desperate to withdraw the United States from the Iran deal. Trump blatantly resents the agreement, the crowning foreign policy achievement of the Obama administration, and lambastes it whenever he can. That included his speech last month at the U.N. General Assembly, during which he called the deal “an embarrassment” and hinted to reporters that he was ready to scrap it.
Now the White House faces its latest deadline — Oct. 15 — to certify to Congress that Iran is in compliance with the terms of the deal. Trump has grudgingly given that approval two times this year, but has loudly signaled that he won’t keep doing so. Speculation over the deal’s demise has given a wing to a flurry of op-eds from neoconservative wonks and Iran hawks in Washington, cheering on possible “decertification.”
But there’s a crucial constituency that may not be on the same page as Trump: “his” generals. On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, a retired Marine general, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee and fielded questions on the administration’s thinking regarding the Iran deal.
During the hearing, Senator Angus King (I-Maine) asked Mattis: “Do you believe it’s in our national security interest at the present time to remain in the JCPOA?” (The JCPOA, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, is the formal term for the Iran deal.)
“Yes, Senator, I do,” Mattis responded.
He also stated that “If we can confirm that Iran is living by the agreement, if we can determine that this is in our best interest, then clearly we should stay with it … I believe at this point in time, absent indications to the contrary, it is something that the president should consider staying with.” Iran’s Press TV pointedly featured the comments on its social media accounts.
Mattis, known for his antipathy toward Iran, is hardly the sort of official whom conservatives can deride as an appeasenik — nor was he the only Marine in the room to back the deal. Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that Iran “is not in material breach” of the deal and that the agreement’s implementation has “delayed the development of nuclear capability by Iran” — precisely as the Obama administration intended.
But the White House sees things differently from the Pentagon. Trump insists that Iran has abrogated the terms of the agreement “in spirit” by testing ballistic missiles and continuing its destabilizing activities in the Middle East. A move by Trump to decertify Iran would give Congress two months to decide whether to restore sanctions on Tehran — an act that could compel Iran to renege on its own commitments. (Congress could also possibly do nothing and let the deal slumber on with European partners taking the lead, which they have pledged to do.)
Another path fervently sought by some Iran hawks is for Congress to use the opportunity to force a renegotiation and expansion of the deal to make it broader than a simple arms control agreement. Critics say the prospect of such a renegotiation is fantasy and, in an interview with Politico’s Susan Glasser, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif rejected it outright.
“The belief that such an outcome is possible is deeply rooted in a fundamental critique of the Iran deal advanced by some Israeli officials, conservative think tanks, and Trump himself: the idea that Obama simply lacked the skill and political will to push for tougher terms when the JCPOA was struck in July 2015,” wrote Colin Kahl, a former Obama administration official. “There’s just one problem: It’s a myth. More pressure would not have produced a better outcome two years ago — and threatening to blow up the deal will not produce a better one today.”
“The United States will be seen as having violated a deal that was working, the Iranians will feel free to resume their nuclear activities, and the strong international coalition that forced Iran to the table in the first place with its global sanctions will be impossible to put back together,” wrote Philip Gordon of the Council on Foreign Relations in The Washington Post.
Gordon, who also served in the Obama administration, added: “Trying to suddenly conjure up a brand-new deal that addresses every problematic aspect of Iran’s foreign policy and blocks its path to a nuclear weapon is a recipe for achieving neither set of goals.”
Nevertheless, there’s a real likelihood that Trump will punt the matter to Congress, passing the buck to an already divided and dysfunctional body. “This could very easily take on a momentum of its own,” warned Jon Finer, the chief of staff to one of the Iran deal’s key architects, former secretary of state John F. Kerry. “You could be in a situation where the administration [won't certify compliance] and Congress will say, ‘Well, the administration has spoken as to Iran’s implementation of the deal,’ and this moves forward whether or not people have fully thought through the consequences.”
One of the consequences of the deal collapsing could be the resumption of Iran’s nuclear program, prompting yet another nuclear-tipped geopolitical crisis. “I know there are some Republicans who are so rabidly against the agreement they might vote to impose sanctions,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) to Al-Monitor, “but I have to believe there are enough reasonable Republicans that they wouldn’t put both North Korea and Iran on a pathway to nuclear weapons.”
Whatever the mood in Washington, a new poll from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that a clear majority of Americans say that the United States should stick to the deal. The country’s top defense officials seem to share that view. But it’s still doubtful that the commander in chief is listening.
Want smart analysis of the most important news in your inbox every weekday along with other global reads, interesting ideas and opinions to know? Sign up for the Today’s WorldView newsletter.
Media captionWhat’s Donald Trump said about guns and gun control?
In the wake of the mass shooting in Las Vegas, gun control advocates are renewing calls for tightening regulation on firearms.
If the story sounds familiar, it’s because a similar dynamic has played out time and time again in recent years, after every new gut-wrenching incident of gun violence makes headlines.
On the federal level, at least, the interest and attention in new legislation has led to almost no action in decades, despite numerous polls showing widespread public support for measures like strengthened background checks and banning certain types of high-capacity gun magazines and military-style assault rifles.
With such a high death toll this time, perhaps the pressure for change will be greater. Here are five big obstacles that stand in the way.
The NRA
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption
A woman shows off her gun at an NRA fashion show
The National Rifle Association is one of the most influential interest groups in US politics – not just because of the money it spends on lobbying politicians, but also because of the engagement of its 5 million members.
It opposes most proposals to strengthen firearm regulations and is behind efforts at both the federal and state levels to roll back many existing restrictions on gun ownership.
In 2016 the NRA spent $4m on lobbying and direct contributions to politicians as well as more than $50m on political advocacy, including an estimated $30m to help elect Donald Trump president.
Its overall annual budget is roughly $250m, allocated to educational programmes, gun facilities, membership events, sponsorships, legal advocacy and related efforts.
Media captionNevada State Senator Don Gustavson: “I’ve shot those guns myself before – they’re fun to shoot at targets”
More than just the numbers, however, the NRA has developed a reputation in Washington as a political force that can make or break even the strongest politicians.
It grades politicians on their votes and directs its resources and those of its membership – both financial and organisational – to supporting its fiercest advocates and defeating staunch opponents.
As one former Republican congressman told the New York Times in 2013: “That was the one group where I said, ‘As long as I’m in office, I’m not bucking the NRA.’”
Could it change? Gun-control groups, backed by wealthy benefactors like former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have become more organised in recent years, attempting to match the NRA’s political might. As long as pro-gun groups keep racking up the legislative and electoral wins, however, they’ll still be king of the hill.
Were Las Vegas guns altered to fire more?
Las Vegas shootings: Is the gunman a terrorist?
Obama: Guns laws were the biggest frustration of my presidency
Gerrymandering
Most recent attempts to pass new federal laws regulating firearms are over before they ever really begin, stymied in the US House of Representatives, which has been in Republican hands since 2011.
In June 2016 a group of Democratic politicians staged a sit-in on the floor of the House to protest the Republican House leadership’s decision not to hold a vote on two gun-control bills.
The House tends to have a pro-gun-rights tilt for the same reason it has recently tended toward the Republican Party in numbers larger than the pure national congressional vote total would indicate.
Image copyright AFP
Image caption
House members sit on the floor “to demand action on common sense gun legislation”
Due to the way the lines of House congressional districts are drawn, many by Republican-controlled state legislatures, there are more “safe” seats for Republicans than there are for Democrats.
In these congressional districts, the politicians are more responsive to their primary voters, who tend to be motivated by hot-button issues like gun rights. The price for crossing these voters is much higher than alienating those who, while perhaps more in favour of gun control, do not vote in Republican primaries.
Demographics also plays a part in the pro-gun sentiment in the House, as there are more rural districts with higher levels of gun ownership than there are urban ones. Racking up big pro-gun-control majorities in urban areas does little to change this political reality in the House.
Could it change? Unless there’s a flood of big-city liberals itching for the country life, demographics will be what they are. There have been some efforts to crack down on overly partisan gerrymandering, however. Barack Obama has made it one of his post-presidency goals, and the Supreme Court is currently considering a legal challenge to Wisconsin legislative districts that give a distinct advantage to Republicans. Getting politics fully out of line-drawing will be a tall task, however.
The filibuster
If a gun-control bill were to make it out of the House of Representatives, it would still face a challenge in the Senate, where the rural-urban divide plays itself out on the state level, as well. States dominated by big-city voters, such as New York, Massachusetts or California, are outnumbered by rural and Southern states with pro-gun sentiments.
The rules of the Senate can also thwart efforts to enact more stringent firearm regulation, thanks to the “filibuster” – a delaying tactic which typically enables lawmakers to drag out speeches to the end of the allocated time, so that no vote can be held.
This has resulted in most legislation needing 60 out of 100 Senate votes to pass, rather than a simple 51-vote majority. Getting 60 votes would prevent the filibuster, allowing the final vote.
In 2013, following the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting, it appeared that efforts to strengthen gun-purchase background checks had significant bipartisan support in the Senate. After a concerted lobbying effort by the NRA, however, the bill received only 56 votes in favour, four short of the mark necessary to break the filibuster.
Media captionBarack Obama’s mass shooting speeches
No gun-control measure has come close to passage since then.
Could it change? Mr Trump has been perhaps the most vocal proponent of doing away with the Senate filibuster, as he views it as an obstacle to enacting his legislative agenda. A majority of senators are on the record against changing the rules, however.
The courts
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption
Protesters in front of the Supreme Court in 2008
With Congress more interested in rolling back existing firearm regulations than implementing new ones, left-leaning US states have taken a greater role in implementing gun-control measures.
After the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, 21 states passed new gun laws, including imposing assault weapons bans in Connecticut, Maryland and New York.
Some of the laws have run up against another barrier, however – the US judicial system. In recent years the Supreme Court has twice ruled that the right to own personal weapons such as handguns is enshrined in the constitution.
Media captionHow countries around the world introduced restrictions following mass shootings
The Second Amendment says that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.
Gun-control activists point to the introductory clause as evidence that the amendment was meant primarily to create a “well regulated” militia. In 2008, however, a sharply divided court held that the Second Amendment provides a broad right to firearm ownership that prohibits stringent registration requirement for personal weapons.
Since then, lower courts have considered challenges to state-imposed assault weapon bans, registration requirements and open-carry prohibitions. So far the Supreme Court has declined to hear any of the new cases, however.
Could it change? Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch has made it clear he views Second Amendment rights broadly. The president is filling out the ranks of the lower courts with pro-gun-rights judges. If anything, the judiciary is moving to the right on this issue.
Perhaps the single biggest obstacle to new gun-control laws at the national level is that opponents tend to hold fiercely to their beliefs, while support for new regulation tends to ebb and flow around each new instance of violence.
The NRA’s strategy, and that of pro-gun politicians, is to wait out the storm – to delay legislative efforts until attention turns elsewhere and the outcry fades.
Pro-gun politicians offer their thoughts and prayers, observe moments of silence and order flags flown half-staff. Then, in the quiet, legislative efforts are deferred and ultimately derailed.
On Monday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters “there’s a time and place for a political debate, but now is the time to unite as a country”.
Mr Trump, in comments as he left the White House for Puerto Rico, said “we will be talking about gun laws as time goes by”.
As time goes by. As that song from the film Casablanca says, it’s still the same old story.
Could it change? According to one poll during the 2016 presidential campaign, guns were an important issue for both Democrats and Republicans. That could be a reflection of that year’s record-setting mass shooting in an Orlando nightclub or the first indication of a new trend.
