Outside the Beltway

Photo credit: 8am.media

Democrats Want to End Iran War: What Does That Mean?

James Joyner
23

Comments

On this morning’s episode of The Daily, Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer vowed that, once they take power in January, his party will cut off funds for the war:

How do you end the war?

Power of the purse.

You deprive the Department of Defense of the money required to conduct the war.

Right. The Founding Fathers gave the power of the purse to the Congress to stop the president from wars that the public didn’t want. I think that was in the Federalist Papers somewhere.

The Congress has continued to fund the war.

We needed five Republican votes. We got three, then four. We’ll get more now.

And you think you can bring this war to an end that way.

Well, we hope so.

POLITICO (“Capitol agenda: Shutdown fight coming sooner than you think“) reports that Democrats may not wait that long.

Democrats have a chance before they take power in January to undercut President Donald Trump’s Iran war checkbook. Not everyone is on board.

Lawmakers will have to pass another funding bill by mid-December to avoid a government shutdown. Though Republicans maintain their majorities until the end of the year, some Democrats — ready to flex their new influence after a midterm blowout — want any year-end spending measure to block cash for the military conflict.

[…]

“Democrats will absolutely not fund Trump’s war of choice with Iran that has increased costs on American families and made us less safe,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro said Thursday in a statement to POLITICO.

Senate Appropriations Vice Chair Patty Murray, in a statement, also attributed Democrats’ midterm gains to the unpopularity of the Iran conflict: “The American people just voted overwhelmingly to put an end to this war, and we are going to look at every tool we have available to us to bring this disastrous war to an end.”

So, I concur that the war has been a disaster. It has achieved none of the political objectives for which it was fought and has all but shut down the Strait of Hormuz for months, dramatically escalating prices for oil, diesel, and products and services that rely on petroleum.

But what does “bring this disastrous war to an end” mean? Do we simply slink away and cede permanent control of the SOM to the IRGC? That doesn’t exactly solve the problem that so energized the electorate: the impact on their cost of living. And defunding the war effort removes whatever leverage the administration—which will be in power for the next fourteen months—has to change that.

Categories

, ,

Tags

, , , , , ,

23 responses to “Democrats Want to End Iran War: What Does That Mean?”

  1. Daryl Avatar
    Daryl

    The only way to end this is with diplomacy. Now how does Congress influence that? Given that Stephen Miller is the new WH Chief of Staff…they probably can’t.

    1. Daryl Avatar
      Daryl

      The only way diplomacy works is if JD or Marco bring actual diplomats on board, behind the scenes, and they manage to provide Fatso with an exit ramp while he is solely focused on the Epstein Ballroom.

      2
  2. Kathy Avatar
    Kathy

    Oh, El taco should be able to end it in fifteen minutes. He claims the Iranians have been begging for a deal for months. All he has to do is focus for a few min— oh.

  3. Michael Cain Avatar
    Michael Cain

    I’ve said it before, but I half expect the Republicans to nuke the filibuster, pass a two-year continuing resolution with lots of money for the military and cuts to the safety net, then spend the time up to the next election lazing around. Take government shutdowns, the debt ceiling, and whether the war is funded off the table.

  4. golem8eight Avatar
    golem8eight

    What if after ending funding for the war the price of gasoline/diesel does not decline?

    What leverage would the U.S. have then?

    2
  5. DK Avatar
    DK

    That doesn’t exactly solve the problem that so energized the electorate: the impact on their cost of living.

    Eh. Stability and clarity in status of the Gay of Hormuz (that’s what we’re calling it now that woke won) will get ships moving and ease oil prices. It solves the problem better than indefinite uncertainty and endless war. Big Oil can then also plan for pipeline build outs to avoid the SOH where necessary.

    Democrats could also help the oil market by helping get Ukraine whatever they need to finish off Putin’s inept invasion of Europe.

    Iran has already been involved in diplomatic talks with Oman — the nation on the other side of the straight — regarding the waterway’s future. Diplomacy is how India, China, Qatar, and Iraq have avoided SOH restrictions. So, presumably, when Democrats stop forcing the American people to pay for Trump’s stupid war, Lil Marco the Empty Suit can finally do his job and engage in some Obama-Hillary-Kerry style JCPOA diplomacy on the Iran issue.

    Failing that, the Trump Crime Syndicate can pay for its own misadventure using the many corrupt billions gained from their crypto scams, Venezuelan oil theft offshore accounts, and other corrupt self-dealing.

    Or solicit Iran War Continuance donations from Trump voters and Ted Cruz and other global right warhawks.

    Or ask MAGA sellout oligarchs Bezos, Zuck, the Packers, the Adelsons, the Kochs, Lutnick, that weird freak Thiel, trillionaire welfare queen Musk et al to pay for it; might prove a more useful spend for them than the trillions they’ve collectively dropped since Citizens United, trying to destroy American democracy and buy American government.

    But working and middle class American don’t want to pay for Trump/Bibi/MBS’s fuckup, shouldn’t have to. So Schumer is right. And Dems had better follow through.

    1
    1. Kathy Avatar
      Kathy

      ..Rubio can finally do his job and engage in some Obama-Hillary-Kerry style JCPOA diplomacy regarding the Iran issue.

      I’m sure a future Democratic president would abide by a treaty or diplomatic agreement made by this so-called administration. But would a future Republiqan president?

      El Taco has spent the past two years blasting the NAFTA updates he himself negotiated.

      1. JohnSF Avatar
        JohnSF

        The JCPOA was the best means of dealing with the nuclear issue.
        However, a basic problem was that Iran used the JCPOA adherence to demand sanctions relief, and that it’s support for Assad in Syria and strikes on Saudi Arabia etc be overlooked.

        This is one reason why Turkey eventually decided to use HTS as a “deniable” proxy to destroy Assad.
        And why Turkish tolerance for Iranian predominance in Iraq may be limited.
        And why the GCC in general and the Saudis in particular have limits to what may be conceded to Iran.

        The US, as I keep saying, is NOT the sole counter-party to Iran.
        (Even the JCPOA involved other Powers; the EU, Germany, France and UK imposed sanctions on Iran in 2013 re JCPOA non-compliance.)

  6. JohnSF Avatar
    JohnSF

    I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again.
    It is a serious error to assume the only actors in this are the US and Iran.

    Iran desires, firstly, acceptance of its control over the Straits, and the presumptive right to permit or deny traffic, and likely to impose tolls.
    Iran has shown some permissiveness on the Straits re diplomatic deals; but NOT to resile on its basic “right” to pass or deny at will.
    Secondly, Iran appears to continue to see this and other policies as part of longer term project to secure itself by dominating the locality, and to eventually to shift the Sunni/Shia and Arab/Iranian balance.

    The GCC is unwilling to accept the first, and both the GCC and others to accept the second.

    The GCC has an economic interest in the Straits being open.
    So does Iran.
    Iran can close the Straits.
    So can the GCC.
    Their drone and missile capability does not, as of now, equal that of Iran, but can be built up, and they have more naval and air capability.

    Other out-of-area countries besides the US have an interest in the Straits being open.
    (This is, incidentally, a point where China and Russian interest diverge.)

    The conclusion is, even if the US were to accede to Iranian demands, in a relatively short time, others are liable to insist Iran drops its demand for effective control over Hormuz.

    If Iran does not agree to do so, there is a considerable likelihood of Hormuz continuing to be choked, and oil etc prices remaining elevated, regardless of US policy.

    The Trump administration made a massive mistake in initiating this conflict without calculating the likely consequences of an inconclusive war.
    However, Iran may also be making a mistake in pursuing maximal gains.

    It’s certainly worth attempting diplomacy to see if Iran can be persuaded to back off if the US does.
    But if Iran does not, Trump has opened Pandoras Box, and the consequences are likely to continue for a long time.

  7. Michael Reynolds Avatar
    Michael Reynolds

    There’s no diplomcy if we manage to throttle the war. There’s surrender. Shut down the war and we have zero leverage. Diplomacy without leverage is surrender. We’re on the deck of the battleship Missouri and we’re on the other side of the table from MacArthur.

    We can continue bombing, going full war-crimes, start hitting utilities – water, power, gas. We can turn Iran into a failed state, a faction-riven, warlord hellhole like Syria. Or we can surrender.

    1. JohnSF Avatar
      JohnSF

      There are options between those, though Trump’s fuck-wittery has made them difficult to achieve.

      The immediate necessity is a US/Iran armistice.

      However, Iran does not then hold all the cards.
      There are various other serious actors who desire the Straits open, but without conceding an Iranian prerogative of control.

      But I doubt the US is now in a position to impose itself as the main determinator in this.
      The US may well end up having lost dominance in the Middle East.

      “All to the good, and not before time”, many Americans may think. “What benefit is it to us anyway?”
      Which is understandable, but in the longer term it likely means a gradual erosion of the petro-dollar recycling, and therefore declining US capability to finance large deficits at lower than otherwise cost.

      That is likely to feed back into US politics.
      If fiscal discipline becomes a necessity rather than an aspiration, US taxation and spending balancing is going to become a lot more pressing than it has been for a long time.
      “Katie, bar the door.”

      1. Michael Reynolds Avatar
        Michael Reynolds

        Any negotiation will start with Iran having some degree of control over Hormuz. Then, if we’re lucky, we get an updated JCPOA and we’ll have to pinkie swear never to bomb Iran again. And of course they’ll get back their sequestered billions.

        And with that, we will be gone. Our bases in the Gulf are useless so long as Iran has missiles and drones and the Russians will see that they do. That leaves Iran well-funded for a rebuilding which will leave them the dominant power, if only because Iranians will fight and Saudi princelings can’t. 5 years on there are Chinese bases around the Gulf, Iran is printing money and bulking up on missiles. That’s if they don’t ignore any deal they sign and set to work on nukes.

        Israel will go it alone – some of their hard right have been pushing for it for a while, tired of being told fairy tales about two state solutions. Israel has few friends left in the US, fewer still in Europe. The far Left and far Right will be thrilled, the Palestinians will be even more fucked than they are now, and the American people will lose interest. Maybe we can try freeing Tibet again. Or the Uighurs.

        But maybe I’m just being gloomy. After all, we have Venezuela.

        1. JohnSF Avatar
          JohnSF

          That may be the US concession.
          But whether other parties accept that concession is another matter.
          Iran has missiles and drones; there is no law of nature that prevents the Arabs having missiles and drones. They may not have them just now, but trillions of dollars can achieve a good deal in a few years.
          Assuming the ineffectual Saudi’s must of necessity remain ineffectual is an assumption.
          The Sunni Arab population of Arabia is not likely to regard subordination to Shia Iranians benignly, and monarchs are often more sensitive to public opinion than might be supposed (European history 101)

          China and Russia have rather divergent interests in the Gulf: both wish to poke the US in the eye, but Putin likes high oil prices, Xi not so much.

          There are also various other parties who have no wish to see Iran becoming a regionally dominant Great Power based on control of oil flows and a nuclear capability: Turkey certainly, Pakistan possibly, Egypt maybe.

          As for Israel: it remains constrained by its economic linkage to Europe.
          However, if Iran gets to nuclear weaponisation, imho the probability of Israeli pre-emption goes to unity, and consequences be damned, from the Israeli pov.

    2. DK Avatar
      DK

      We all know the decision was made to surrender the moment boots-on-the-ground was ruled out. The war is not winnable without a full blown commitment, and Trump has no stomach for that. This is why every other Republican and Democratic administration turned down neolib and Israeli desires to start such a war, knowing it cannot be won without a costly and unpopular invasion (and even that is no guarantee given Iran’s notoriously difficult terrain, which has made the Persian empire virtually invasion-proof for thousands of years).

      It is typically American of us to want to have it both ways, demanding wins with no costs. We don’t want to be seen as surrendering but we don’t want to make the sacrifices necessary to actually win the war. Iran cannot be defeated with some half-assed, namby pamby, one-foot-in one-foot-out air campaign. This reality won’t bend to cater to our chauvanistic American egos.

      If Trump, Netanyahu, and MbS actually want to win the war they stupidly started, they should start dropping nuclear bombs and/or send in troops. Since they’re not going to do that, they need to accept that Obama was right, they screwed up royally, and take the L.

      Expecting the American people to bankrupt ourselves so these three stooges and US chauvinists can save face is a non-starter. Get somebody else to do it. Trump’s oligarchs and the Saudi oil cartel can dip into their own pockets to keep funding their misadventure, if they don’t want to “surrender.” Musk is a MAGA trillionaire. Let him fund it. Let Qatar and Israel fund it. Dems aren’t doing it.

      1
      1. JohnSF Avatar
        JohnSF

        Precisely.
        War with Iran is the definition of “Go big, or go home”
        And why every US President since Carter has noped.

        Israel is certainly not going to commit the IDF to land war in Iran.
        Turkey surely won’t, unless it becomes existential.
        Ditto Pakistan and Egypt.

        I’d disagree re MBS though; all the indications are that Riyadh was advising “do not do this”; but did not say so outright publicly for fear of the ire of Trump.
        (The UAE may have advised differently? Remains to be seen, post-war.)

        Footnote:
        As an inveterate historical quibbler, I’d argue Iran was really not “virtually invasion-proof”.
        Those who managed it included the Greeks, Rashidun Arabs, Mongols, Afghans (partially), and the Soviets and British in WW2.

        1. JohnSF Avatar
          JohnSF

          The possible fatal mistake Iran may make is, like some from the US pov, that it and the US are sole effective actors in this.
          That is not so.
          If Iran pushes its demands for a settlement with the US to the point of existential peril for other actors, they will respond.
          Not necessarily immediately, but within a few years.

        2. DK Avatar
          DK

          I stick by everything I wrote. Everything I read said MBS urged Trump to strike and has been a sunk. cost cheerleader since. He’s a violent, murderous, two-faced viper. Untrustworthy and Machiavellian. Just like JD Vance, always trying to play it both ways — pushing for thuggery then leaking in his favor so he can do the phony “Who? Me?” act. MbS doesn’t deserve benefit of the doubt. I will continue to blame him right along with Bibi and Trump.

          1
  8. Slugger Avatar
    Slugger

    Trump was a big part of ending the Afghanistan war in 2020. It left the country in the hands of the Taliban. Trump will have no trouble leaving the IRGC in charge of Iran. He will create a large Peace in Hormuz plaque covered in gold paint featuring his face and placing this on the mall.

    1
    1. JohnSF Avatar
      JohnSF

      There was no way to remove IRGC control short of full-scale invasion.
      Which would have been messy, to put it mildly.
      And why every US administration from Carter onward noped out.
      Netanyahu cozened Trump into believing otherwise, for reasons that make sense to Bibi, and Hegseth was idiot enough to not contradict. (Also Rubio? Unclear.)

      But as I keep saying, now the US has opened the gates of war, it is not necessarily within the sole power of the US to close them again.
      If Iran continues to press maximal demands.

  9. Ken_L Avatar
    Ken_L

    Should Democrats succeed in ending the US blockade of shipping to and from Iranian ports, together with an assurance there will be no more American attacks on Iranian territory, a whole new situation would exist. It’s impossible to predict what might then become achievable through diplomacy; diplomacy mainly involving the countries in the region, not Trump’s blundering “personal envoys”. But countries from Pakistan to Türkiye have been deeply involved in negotiations. They should be given the opportunity to stabilise the region free of the threat of a sudden eruption of violence from the USA.

    No surefire pathway to end the war with American pride intact exists, nor does America deserve one.

    1. JohnSF Avatar
      JohnSF

      That is the hopeful outlook.
      Assuming the US is willing to stop being foolish.
      However, the other problem is Iran is, as of now, continuing to insist it has a prerogative of control over the Straits of Hormuz, to pass or deny passage, to toll or not, as it sees fit.

      In the longer term, this is not acceptable to other parties, whether or not it is to the US.

      Whether Iran is willing to back off from that demand is the other crucial question.

  10. JohnSF Avatar
    JohnSF

    Reply to DK:
    I fully agree that MBS is a snake.
    However, snakiness is relative.
    He’s probably less so than MBZ of UAE (see Sudan etc)
    My analysis (and that of others) is Riyadh was agin’ it.
    I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
    The Saudis seem to have been attempting a deal with Iran; they were OK with limited strikes, but counselled a full-on war was folly unless the US was up for invasion, which it was not.

    And did not carry out counter-strikes, when it might have.
    The UAE, otoh, seems to have done so.

    What the actuality may be will probably only become definite after some time.

    But I’m inclined to bet on Saudi caution, because the Saudis are usually cautious.
    Also, UK is committing RAF assets to SA, which if SA had initiated this, UK would be very reluctant to do.

    1. JohnSF Avatar
      JohnSF

      That does not mean MBS is a “good guy” or the Saudis benign.
      Just that in this, as in some other matters, they tend to be cautious to a fault.
      See also their reluctance about getting onboard with the “Abraham Accords”, or pushing the Houthi war to a conclusion back in 2022.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest Posts