Maria Cantwell is the only Democratic senator who has not yet declared her stance on the Iran nuclear agreement.
Four Democratic senators announced Tuesday where they stand on the Iran nuclear agreement, leaving Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington as the only Senate Democrat yet to declare her preference.
Sens. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Gary Peters of Michigan and, to the surprise of many close observers, Ron Wyden of Oregon all declared themselves in favor of the agreement. Sen. Joe Manchin III said he is against. Click on their names for statements.
That raised the total number of Senate supporters—all Democrats—to 41. Theoretically, that's enough to filibuster any resolution of disapproval put forth by Republicans. This would mean the president would not be faced with having to veto such a resolution, which he would certainly do.
But at least one of the agreement-backing senators, Chris Coons of Delaware, is on record as wanting an up or down vote and would presumably not join a filibuster. That leaves the only chance of a filibuster in Cantwell's hands, presuming she backs the agreement. And there is always the possibility that some other Democrats who support the agreement also might not support a filibuster.
So far, 48 of the 54 Senate Republicans have announced they oppose the deal, but nobody expects any of the remaining six to support it, except perhaps Susan Collins of Maine. But there's very little likelihood she will.
Like other Democrats, in his statement, Peters indicated he was highly conflicted:
“No issue that I have faced as a Member of Congress has been more consequential than the one before us now. Putting in place a deal that fails to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon could put the United States, our men and women in uniform and our allies in the region at risk. However, hastily rejecting an agreement that steers Iran away from the nuclear path could likewise produce the same result. At every step in this process, I have closely considered the consequences of both courses of action when evaluating arguments from both supporters and opponents of this agreement.
“Despite my serious reservations, I will reluctantly vote against a motion of disapproval because I believe that doing so will protect the credibility of the United States to hold Iran accountable to adhere to every single obligation in the JCPOA. But if Iran fails to meet its international obligations under this accord, I will support the immediate reinstatement of Congressional sanctions, and I will encourage my colleagues in Congress to do the same. Given the terms of this agreement, especially after fifteen years when Iran’s breakout time shrinks back to months or even weeks, preventing an Iranian nuclear breakout may require the use of military force, and if necessary I will support doing so to ensure the United States, Israel and the global community never has to face the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran.”
See more excerpts from statements below the fold.
Here's Wyden:
"This agreement with the duplicitous and untrustworthy Iranian regime falls short of what I had envisioned, however I have decided the alternatives are even more dangerous." [...]
No one can be certain what will happen if this agreement is rejected, but all signs point to even more risk and even less stability in the region. Our international partners, who helped negotiate this agreement and who now stand behind it, have only reinforced that point, both in public and in my private conversations. If this agreement is rejected the most likely scenario is not one in which a chastened Iran returns to the negotiating table hat in hand to make additional concessions, but rather one where Iran's leaders continue to test and install new centrifuges and edge ever closer to the bomb, free from the intrusive inspections that this agreement would create. When negotiations between the Europeans and Iran broke down during the Bush administration, Iran went from less than a thousand centrifuges to many thousands. If the U.S. rejects this agreement, I see no reason why the mullahs won't run the same play again, adding to the already 19,000 centrifuges they currently have.
Here's Manchin:
“When this process began, I was supportive of the diplomatic efforts led by Secretaries Kerry and Moniz. I have always believed that to truly be a super power, you must engage in super diplomacy. Whenever I am able, I will choose diplomacy over war because the stakes are so high for West Virginia, which has one of the highest rates of military service in the nation. But as I struggled with this decision, I could not ignore the fact that Iran, the country that will benefit most from sanctions being lifted, refuses to change its 36-year history of sponsoring terrorism. [...]
“I also cannot in good conscience agree to Iran receiving up to $100 billion in funds that everyone knows will be used, at least in some part, to continue funding terrorism and further destabilize the Middle East. Lifting sanctions without ensuring that Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism is neutralized is dangerous to regional and American security. The Administration has accepted -- what I consider to be a false choice -- that this is only about nuclear weapons and not terrorism. However, the fact of the matter is that we are concerned about Iran having a bomb because, in large part, it is the world’s largest state sponsor of terror. Asking us to set aside the terrorist question is irresponsible and misses the point. [...]
“While the deal places real constraints on Iran’s nuclear program for the next 10-15 years, after that term, Iran will be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in a very short period of time. While I hope that its behavior will change in that span, I cannot gamble our security, and that of our allies, on the hope that Iran will conduct themselves differently than it has for the last 36 years.
“It is because of that belief, and a month of thoughtful consideration, that I must cast a vote against this deal. I do not believe that supporting this deal will prevent Iran from eventually acquiring a nuclear weapon or continuing to be a leading sponsor of terrorism against Americans and our allies around the world."
Here's Blumenthal:
"I will vote to support the proposed agreement concerning Iran's nuclear program and against the resolution of disapproval before the Senate. My two paramount goals have been to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and do so by peaceful means. I believe the proposed agreement, using diplomacy, not military force, is the best path now available to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. [...]
"While this is not the agreement I would have accepted at the negotiating table, it is better than no deal at all. And it can be made even better through unilateral American action and collaboration with our European allies."