The Obama administration is facing long odds for the president’s party to retain control of the U.S. Senate in the elections this Nov. 4. If the Republicans win control of the Senate to add to their House majority, foreign policy issues may become far more contentious in the next two years.
Two of the issues on which the two sides may bang heads concern Israel. The more pressing item concerns the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. The current talks between the P5+1 and Iran have already been extended once, and if no deal is reached by Nov. 24, may be extended again. That would avoid an admission of defeat by an administration that has been loath to ever admit defeat about any policy or programmatic failure, of which there have been many.
On the other hand, there are also fears that in order to avoid another extension of the negotiations, the administration and its partners will humble themselves before the mullahs by offering much more of what the Iranians are demanding to close the deal. This would include concessions on the number of spinning centrifuges, inspections, weapons systems, and elimination or reduction of sanctions against the regime in the five weeks remaining before the deadline. This may still not be enough to avoid the Iranians pulling the rug out, since they have learned that delay never hurts them, so long as a few more concessions are pocketed while they agree to continue to talk. In other words, if the Iranians are unhappy with America’s best offer today, they know it is not our final offer, and that the next offer after this one, which may come near the deadline of the next extension will probably be even better for them. But expect any extension to be accompanied by some sanctions relief and concessions on centrifuges by the P5+1.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration may feel the need for a deal this November, especially if it receives a stinging rebuke from voters in a few days, and wants to change the political momentum with a “victory” of some sorts. So there may be added incentive for it to get this done in the two months between the elections and the swearing in of the new Congress in January, which is likely to be less friendly.
This raises the issue of exactly what it is that gets done, if something is done. The administration, through its loyal mouthpiece, The New York Times, has made it clear that it will not sign a treaty with Iran, but rather a multipartyagreement. What this means is that the Senate will not get a shot at approving a “treaty,” which requires two-thirds of those voting to pass, and the president will do what he chooses to do without the consent of the Senate. This will not go down well in a Republican-controlled Senate.