Mediaboss Marketing

Last week, Iraq hosted a regional summit intended to encourage archrivals Saudi Arabia and Iran to resolve their differences and ease tensions in several countries in the Middle East that have become their proxy battlegrounds. Reconciliation between the two could pave the path for peace in Yemen, save Lebanon from a total collapse, and aid Iraqs, and maybe in time even Syrias, economic recovery.

Although Iraq was applauded for opening its doors to discuss a possible end to the cold war that has been fought between Riyadh and Tehran for hegemony of the Muslim world, no breakthrough was achieved. Saudi and Iranian foreign ministers merely agreed to continue the conversation that started in April just days after the Biden administration began an indirect dialogue with Iran to revive the Iranian nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA].

The Iranian-Saudi talks have stalled, however, because of Irans insistence on consolidating its gains made by using its armed militias; uncertainty over the fate of the JCPOA; and the absence of security guarantees from the United States, upon whom Saudi Arabia is dependent.

Last week, Iraq hosted a regional summit intended to encourage archrivals Saudi Arabia and Iran to resolve their differences and ease tensions in several countries in the Middle East that have become their proxy battlegrounds. Reconciliation between the two could pave the path for peace in Yemen, save Lebanon from a total collapse, and aid Iraqs, and maybe in time even Syrias, economic recovery.

Although Iraq was applauded for opening its doors to discuss a possible end to the cold war that has been fought between Riyadh and Tehran for hegemony of the Muslim world, no breakthrough was achieved. Saudi and Iranian foreign ministers merely agreed to continue the conversation that started in April just days after the Biden administration began an indirect dialogue with Iran to revive the Iranian nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA].

The Iranian-Saudi talks have stalled, however, because of Irans insistence on consolidating its gains made by using its armed militias; uncertainty over the fate of the JCPOA; and the absence of security guarantees from the United States, upon whom Saudi Arabia is dependent.

Irans government is keen for the resumption of diplomatic ties with the Saudis, which would help it entrench its currently contested international legitimacy and possibly lay the groundwork for greater regional engagement, economic and social, that would also bolster the government domestically. Iran wants to show its people that it is not completely isolated, and that the economic straits in which it is suffering are largely a result of American hostilitynot the regimes costly interventions in the Middle East, which have become targets of angry protest.

The government of Irans new president, Ebrahim Raisi, can count on some domestic support for this narrative, especially after Raisis decisive election victory; and of course he has the full backing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and hardline factions such as those that dominate the Revolutionary Guard. But that is unlikely to quell protests in Iran that have complained that the policy of supporting militias from Lebanon to Yemen is too costly when money is short at homeand only attracts further sanctions.

The complication in this scenario is that Raisi intends neither to rein in those militias nor to agree to changes in the nuclear deal. Irans development of long-range ballistic missiles, which the United States would like to include in further talks, raises a particular threat to Saudi Arabia. As long as Iran is not ready to concede on these key fronts, the Saudis simply do not see the prospect of a deal.

Seyed Hossein Mousavian, an Iranian policymaker who served on Irans nuclear diplomacy team in negotiations with the European Union in 2015, summarized Iranian presidents thinking: As I understand, President Raisis approach will be for the P5+1 and Iran to be committed to JCPOA as is and full compliance vs. full compliance,' Mousavian said. That means the broader issues the United States and its allies such as Saudi Arabia (let alone Israel) see as important next steps are not currently on the table.

Simon Henderson, Baker Fellow and director of the Bernstein Program on Gulf and Energy Policy at the Washington Institute, said that he thought Iran would continue to support militias across the so-called Shia crescent. Any adjustment will be for tactical rather than strategic reasons, Henderson said.

Raisis presidential inauguration teemed with a horde of leaders of non-state militias it backs, many of whom have spent years or decades carving away Saudi influence in the region in favor of Irans presence. Their presence and prominence at the event certainly did not boost Saudi confidence in the talks.

Joost Hiltermann, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the International Crisis Group, said Iran sees these armed partners as critical to its posture in the surrounding region. However, these militias also pursue a domestic agenda that does not always perfectly coincide with Irans regional design, Hiltermann added.

It could get more interesting if these groups over-reach in their domestic environments, he said. This could happen especially in Iraq, where the Iran-backed militias, as well as many of the others, could run afoul of popular sentiment when they become predatory and act as especially violent auxiliaries of the state without accountability, or are seen to be fighting on behalf of Iran instead of Iraqi national interest.

In Lebanon, too, criticism of Hezbollah has increased. Although the group still has broad support in its strongholds, it is losing ground in the rest of the country. Most people in Lebanon blame the political elite for rampant corruption and ruining the countrys economy. But many also see Hezbollah as the reason behind the United States and Saudi Arabias reluctance to extract the country from its financial crisis.

These flickerings of regional opposition to the Iranian project, together with the possibility of a breakdown of the JCPOA talks, seem to have given the Saudis the sense their leverage over Iran may grow. They may even hope that Irans intransigence will cause the collapse of the Vienna talks, leaving Iran under sanctions and less able to support its broader regional objectives. Rather than make any concessions to help Iran, Saudi Arabia would prefer to keep it on its trajectory of deepening isolation.

Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, said that if the United States-Iran nuclear deal is not restored, Tehran and Washington will remain at daggers drawn, and under those circumstances, Iran-Saudi de-escalation is unlikely, if not impossible.

He added that any resolution between the regional foes would depend on the division of areas of influence. Ultimately, both countries would have to agree on a set of rules and to potentially determine zones of influence in the region, Vaez said.

Analysts suggest that, as far as mutual concessions go, Syria is low-hanging fruit for Saudis and Yemen is the same for Iranians. Saudi Arabia could join the United Arab Emirates in pushing for diplomatic recognition of the Assad regime, while Iran could push its local allies the Houthis into a deal with the Saudi-backed government of Yemen. Compromises could be found for both Iraq and Lebanon.

But Iran sees such an idea as an unnecessary volte-face: Irans local allies, including the Syrian army and Hezbollah, have with Russian backing already routed Sunni-led opposition groups from regime-held territory in Syria; and the Houthis are currently winning the war in Yemen. And Iran has already succeeded in planting proxies inside the governments of both Iraq and Lebanon.

Iran has expanded its influence in the Middle East, and in that sense it has won the unconventional war it has been fighting. But many of the regions countries, including Iran itself, are economically miserable. They are either mired in active conflicts, brought low by the effects of wars and sanctions, or like Lebanon are suffering self-imposed financial crises.The Saudis for now have little to gain from acknowledging Irans victories and cementing them in place. Until that changes, Iranians, as well as the citizens of other nations stuck in the middle of the Saudi Arabia-Iran rivalry, will continue to lose out.

More:
Saudi-Iranian Rapprochement Is Heading Nowhere - Foreign Policy

Traveling to Iran can be one of the most memorable things you can do in your life. However, it can become one of the most annoying things if your trip does not match your preferences and travel style.

You are going on a vacation to a new country to have a better time than usual. Therefore, it is very crucial to choose your Iran travel type wisely. The variety of Iran travel itineraries can bring forth a wide range of different experiences for travelers.

Iran tourscan be divided into different groups based on the different personalities and travel types. Therefore, you get to choose the type that fits you. So, you are sure you reserve a tour that will be one of those vacations you will remember for good.

Iran Cultural Tours: the Path to the Unheard Stories

Undoubtedly, traveling is far more than spending your vacations in a new place for leisure and recreation. From the moment you step into the destination, you unfold the unheard narratives of its cultures. Thus, some Iran tours intend to take the visitors into a deeper aspect of the Iranian lifestyle, Persian culture, and history. They take you to the gist of the trip on the streets of cities, among locals, in the luxury or local restaurants, and through a time tunnel-like journey in the historical sites. TheseIran cultural toursinvolve a great deal of our Persian culture, history, customs, and everything. So, the range of the things you may want to see is diverse. That is why you should get to know your preferences. Do you prefer more historical sites or more interaction with people? Do you want to spend more time in urban places or natural spots? All the journey moments including diverse nature, historical heritage, local food, magnificent architecture, as well as hospitable people of Iran, are exciting parts of every Iran cultural tour. But, it depends on you and your interests to modify which one is involved and how much.

Iran Trekking Tours: the Unknown Wild

Iran is a country of different climates; it has mountains, jungles, deserts, and various plains. This diversity of scenery and experience has madeIran hiking toursa perfect mixture. Besides, Iran trekking tours widen your perspective. They break the narratives portrayed in the media from Iran as a country of deserts. From the greenery of mountains to the many mineral hot springs on the hiking trails, youd get to explore the variety of sceneries that Iran has to offer in different Iran tour packages.

However, trekking mountains are not just about the trails and their natural beauty. Its also about the local life and the stories youll get to explore. In different mountainous regions, you meet the nomads that travel by season. Or youll get to meet hikers from different countries in Iran. They can tell you more about the unseen trekking routes on your way to explore some of the Middle Easts highest summits in Iran! Also, it is always the right time to climb in Iran because it is a 4-season country. You can do it all year round. For instance, you didnt make it to be in Iran in the summer? Dont worry! The south of Iran has a pleasant climate for hiking in winter. Besides, you can head for swimming in the Persian Gulf at the end of your trip!

Iran Damavand Tours: Exploring the Mystic Mountain

Damavand Mountain is a great challenge for all! It is accessible for anyone who is prepared for hiking and trekking. Particularly in the summer, it doesnt need much professional hiking gear. Many people of different ages and various levels of professionalism will climb up the lush trails towards Irans highest peak. Not only Damavand is the highest mountain in Iran, but also it is the highest summit in the Middle East. Its also the highest volcanic summit in Asia. Its the 12th prominence summit in the world. Damavand is known as the ceiling of Iran in the list of 7 volcanic summits of the world. With its extraordinary view and a variety of flora and fauna, Damavand trekking tours will fill any eyes with joy!

Iran Desert Tours: A Trip to the Land of Serenity

The cultural and trekking tours are not mere types of Iran tour packages. Now, its time to get to the special item on our menu: Iran deserts. This vast country can offer you many natural wonders. But you will find out that these golden dunes are as lively as green jungles and blue waters. There are old cities and villages on the verge of drylands where their residents have overcome the severity of deserts and made their lives. The fantastic water supply system, Qanat, or the miraculous Shazde Garden in the heart of the desert are some examples. This ancient lifestyle is an exclusive Iran attraction. Yet, the main story starts when you step on the sands of Lut or Kavir Deserts. The white and mirror-like salt lakes, enormous stone sculptures, dune hills one after the other, and finally the azure sky of the night with the polka dot of stars all over it is all the extraordinary beautiful scenes you'll remember from Iran desert tours.

Read more:
All Types of Iran Tours - Tehran Times

President Joe Bidens much-discussed plans to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal are off to a bad start. After six rounds, indirect talks between Washington and Tehran were put on hold last June until Irans new president, Ebrahim Raisi, could take office on Aug. 5. Now, almost a month later, there is still no indication of when the next diplomatic session will take place.

By all accounts, Iranian leaders are eager to alleviate sanctions and revive the Islamic Republics moribund economy. However, they also took a number of steps, such as rapid uranium enrichment and research into uranium metals, that make a return to the deal difficult. Only by correctly interpreting the source of these mixed signals from Tehran will it be possible to determine whether the current impasse in talks can ultimately be overcome.

Iran appears to have embarked on a confusing high-stakes negotiating strategy as a result of both domestic political fissures and President Donald Trumps maximum pressure campaign. Trumps withdrawal from the nuclear deal and renewal of sanctions, along with a series of high-profile assassinations and sabotage attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, increased the popularity of Iranian hardliners and facilitated their return to power. In December 2020, while the moderate Rouhani administration was still in charge of the government, hardliners in Irans parliament (Majles) passed a law that requires Iran to advance its nuclear program in threatening ways until sanctions are lifted. This law, promoted over the objections of the departing administration, substantially limits the flexibility of Iranian diplomats and is a major obstacle to reviving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The question now is how the hardliners, after taking control of the government, will deal with the consequences of their December law and other escalatory moves. The ball is in Tehrans court, and there is little that Biden and the rest of the world can do besides hold their ground and wait to see what the regime decides.

Raising the Stakes

As a result of the Iranian parliaments actions, Irans nuclear program has advanced substantially. Iran is now enriching uranium up to 60 percent, far above the nuclear deals cap of 3.67 percent. Further, as part of a multi-stage process to produce fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor, Iran is also producing uranium metal enriched up to 20 percent. The International Atomic Energy Agency recently confirmed that Iran has produced 200 grams of this metal, up from 3.6 grams in February.

Uranium metal can be used for civilian purposes or to make the core of a nuclear bomb. While the international community remains skeptical, Iran claims that it aims to produce uranium silicide fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. In practice, the reactor would irradiate uranium silicide pellets to produce medical isotopes, commonly used in diagnostic procedures for cancer and heart disease. However, on the road to producing this sophisticated uranium fuel, Iran must work with uranium metal, and this sort of metallurgy was banned for 15 years under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Russias response offers perhaps the best illustration of how serious Irans escalation is: In a break from its past whitewashing of Irans nuclear behavior, Moscow now believes that Iran seems to be going too far. In a joint statement, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have also registered their grave concern, arguing that Irans enrichment and production of uranium metal are both key steps in the development of a nuclear weapon and that Iran has no credible civilian need for either measure.

Raising the stakes further, these new activities are occurring while Iran has suspended a special monitoring agreement with inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency. With its December law, the Majles imposed a deadline to restrict inspectors access to Iranian nuclear facilities absent sanctions relief from the United States. At that point the agency and the Rouhani government negotiated a three-month work-around agreement that reportedly provided inspectors with the means to reconstitute a full picture of Irans nuclear program if the nuclear deal were to be revived. While the agency is flying blind for now, when sanctions are lifted they should subsequently get access to monitoring equipment that continues to watch Irans program in the meantime. The three months ended in May, but Tehran may have unofficially allowed monitoring to continue. Now, however, some of the recording devices need to be replaced and if they are not, the world may never be able to fully account for the activities of Irans nuclear program during this period. The resulting uncertainty could exacerbate existing tensions between the United States and Iran, as well as accelerate anxiety in Israel, which has long threatened a dangerous preemptive strike against Irans nuclear program.

What Is Tehran Trying to Signal?

Contrary to the image often found in U.S. media, Irans foreign policy apparatus is not a monolith, nor can it be simply characterized as a top-down decision-making structure with the supreme leader exercising full authority from above. Ariane Tabatabai, now a senior adviser at the State Department, wrote in 2019 that Irans national security decision-making process can be better characterized as a bargaining process, in which infighting and consensus-building shape policy outputs.

These tensions and disagreements within the system were on full display in the debate over last Decembers nuclear law. Following the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in November 2020, Irans parliament voted to manufacture uranium metal, suspend international nuclear inspections, and vastly increase uranium enrichment. Former Iranian president Hassan Rouhani and others associated with his administration have specifically blamed the Majles and the December 2020 nuclear law for the subsequent failure to lift U.S. sanctions. My administration did all the things to lift the sanctions, Rouhani recently argued. If the parliament law had not stopped us, we would have lifted the sanctions almost before Norouz [March 21, 2021]. His spokesman Ali Rabiei also criticized parliamentary interference with the executive branch, saying, The government was from day one consistently opposed to parliaments unusual path.

Now, however, hardliners dominate the government, and it will be their strategy that determines the fate of nuclear negotiations. During the 2020 parliamentary elections, Irans Guardian Council excluded many of the more moderate and reformist candidates from contention, leaving the conservative Principalists faction with a decisive majority. Winning 221 of the 290 seats, they more than doubled their presence in the Majles. Moreover, the Supreme Leader handpicked Raisi to be president, endorsing the new presidents belief that only a powerful government can properly implement the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The supreme leader also exerts considerable control over much of Raisis cabinet.

After Raisis election, an implementation committee was formed to help forge an internal consensus on how to approach nuclear negotiations. Created by the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Irans top decision-making body, it consists of representatives from the Rouhani administration, the incoming Raisi administration, and the Majles. It is unknown if the committee has come to a consensus yet. In July, this committee reportedly determined that the draft roadmap that Rouhanis team had negotiated is incompatible with the law passed by parliament in December about resuming Irans nuclear program. The question is whether this is simply political posturing aimed at increasing Raisis leverage or, more ominously, a firm red line from the Iranian regime.

The Ball Is in Irans Court

It remains likely that the hardliners running Iran see a resumption of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, with any concessions and sanctions relief that can be squeezed out of Washington, to be in their best interest. However, negotiations require flexibility and can easily be derailed by existing red lines. The December law was a show of force by hardliners while the Rouhani administration was in office. Hardliners are now in control of the negotiations and are realizing that their maximalist stance is not going to achieve much. Unhappy with the status quo, they would like to see a breakthrough but seem to be hesitating over what strategy to adopt. This has led to a short-term approach that combines radical escalation and very partial compliance. The result, so far, is confusion, delays, and stalemate.

If Raisi and his government stick to maximalist demands like making sanctions relief irreversible while moving ahead with their escalatory measures, a return to the deal may soon become impossible. Iran would likely continue to advance its nuclear program, which could lead the United States to retaliate with more punitive economic sanctions. If tensions do escalate, it is possible that Iran could further reduce cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and its nuclear program could be referred back to the United Nations Security Council. At this point, Russias position on whether Iran had gone too far would become crucial.

Where Will Biden Go From Here?

The Biden administrations initial optimism about reviving the nuclear deal is rapidly waning. Bidens point man on the issue, Robert Malley, now assesses the future of the deal as just one big question mark. Senior U.S. diplomats appear set on rejecting any concessions to Irans escalatory negotiating strategy. As one official said, If they think they can get more, or give less to return to a deal it is illusory. Furthermore, the Biden administration will be wary not to waste additional domestic political capital on foreign policy, especially after Afghanistan. According to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, We have clearly demonstrated our good faith and desire to return to mutual compliance with the nuclear agreement The ball remains in Irans court and we will see if theyre prepared to make the decisions necessary to come back into compliance.

This is the right approach. For now, U.S. negotiators should continue to wait and see whether Iran is willing to return to talks in Vienna. Ultimately, compromises on both sides will be necessary. But there are several reasons why it would not make sense to preemptively offer the hardliners a better deal. First, Iran is now far from the guidelines of the original deal. Enriching uranium to 60 percent, even if this is in response to an act of sabotage against the Natanz nuclear facility, demonstrates the pursuit of capabilities with no civilian purpose. Second, Washington should not give the hardliners an easy win. Allowing them to use their undemocratic election to accumulate greater leverage would undermine the administrations efforts to promote more moderate interlocutors in Iran. Finally, the better deal Iran wants may not be possible. Tehran would like to see Biden guarantee that a future U.S. president cannot reimpose sanctions. But the nature of American democracy means that this isnt a promise that Biden can make.

Despite all of the obstacles, reviving the nuclear deal should theoretically be easy. Iran wants sanctions relief, and the United States wants constraints on Irans nuclear program. While both the United States and Iran have accumulated bargaining chips, further escalation is possible, and it will be up to the new Iranian government to decide how to move forward and manage its own domestic politics. There is room for compromise on the timing and sequencing of a return to compliance with the nuclear deal. But hard decisions should be made now before the situation needlessly spirals out of hand.

Samuel M. Hickey is a research analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. His areas of focus include the geopolitics of nuclear power developments in the Middle East, nuclear security, missile defense, and non-proliferation.

Manuel Reinert is a Ph.D. candidate at American University, consultant with the World Bank, and adjunct faculty at Georgetown University.

Image: Permanent Mission of Iran to the United Nations (Vienna)

Read more:
What's Iran's Nuclear Deal? - War on the Rocks

Just two days after the U.S. ended its 20-year war in Afghanistan, more than a dozen Democrats with strong ties to the military establishment defied President Joe Biden and voted to add nearly $24 billion to the defense budget for fiscal year 2022.

On Wednesday,14 Democrats joined 28 Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee to adopt an amendment from Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., to the fiscal year 2022 defense authorization bill that would boost Bidens $715 billion spending proposal to $738.9 billion. The move follows the Senate Armed Services Committees vote to similarly raise the top line to more than $740 billion in its July markup of the bill.

The 14 House Democrats to support the defense spending were Reps. Jim Langevinof Rhode Island; Joe Courtneyof Connecticut; Jared Goldenof Maine; Elaine Luriaof Virginia;Mikie Sherrillof New Jersey; Stephanie Murphyof Florida; Anthony Brownof Maryland; Filemon Velaof Texas; Seth Moultonof Massachusetts; Salud Carbajalof California; Elissa Slotkinof Michigan; Kai Kaheleof Hawaii; Marc Veaseyof Texas; and Steven Horsfordof Nevada.

The decision by these lawmakers to approve the higher budget is not necessarily shocking in a political environmentin which the militarys leaders demand an annual budget growth of 3 to 5 percent above inflation. Bidens $715 billion proposal was a 1.5 percent nonadjusted increase above this years spending level.

One congressional staffer, who was not permitted to speak on the record, said in an email, many Dems, especially when serving [on the House Armed Services Committee] are reluctant to look soft on defense by opposing increases to the defense budget, so in some ways its surprising the majority of Dems still voted against the topline increase. (Seventeen Democrats voted against Rogerss amendment, not enough to prevent its inclusion in the bill.)

Many ofthe Democrats who voted for the $24 billion increase have close ties to the defense establishment. Their districts are home to job-promoting manufacturing sites and military bases, and much of the extra funding will go directly to projects at those locations. Many of the Democrats have also received generous campaign donations from contractors. In fact, Federal Election Commission data shows that in the first six months of this year, the 14 Democrats collectively received at least $135,000 from PACs representing the countrys top 10 defense vendors: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, L3Harris, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Leidos, Honeywell, and Booz Allen Hamilton.

A closer look reveals potentially strong incentives for those Democrats to support an increase in defense spending:

Meanwhile, some of the 14 Democrats who defied Biden to vote for greater defense spending have also tried to blow up their partys efforts to achieve the presidents domestic policy goalsmost notably, Medicare expansion, paid family leave, an extension of the child tax credit, and billions of dollars for clean energy and other climate initiatives. Golden and Vela joined New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer last month to insist that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., hold an immediate vote on a $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill rather than wait to finish Democrats flagship $3.5 trillion reconciliation package. Murphy later joined that call, airing concerns about the size of the reconciliation bill. Their demands were ultimately unsuccessful.

Despite so many members of Congress voting to add money to the defense budgets, 17 Democrats still opposed Rogerss amendment, including committee chair Adam Smith of Washington, who received $32,000 in donations from the PACs of the top 10 defense contractors in the first half of this year the most of any Democrat on the panel.

Despite disagreeing with the increase, Smith and most of the others still voted to approve the overarching defense legislation and advance it to the floor anyway. (In fact, the 15 Democrats who voted against the higher budget but nevertheless passed the bill collectively received a few thousand dollars more in donations from the top 10 military contractors than the 14 who supported Rogerss amendment.) Only California Reps. Sara Jacobs and Ro Khanna who got no money from the vendors stood their ground and voted against the bills passage.

[A]fter twenty years of war in Afghanistan, twenty years of our servicemembers and their families answering the call, trillions of dollars in funding from the American people, I cant support another misguided effort to overflow the Pentagons budget beyond what our military leaders are even requesting, Jacobs said in a press release.

For Khanna, Wednesday was the first time he voted against moving the annual defense bill out of committee in five years; he argued that the $24 billion would be better spent on helping veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, resettling Afghan allies and refugees, or vaccinating people against Covid-19.

More:
Democrats Who Joined Republicans to Increase Military Budget Have Strong Defense Ties - The Intercept

Democrats in Congress are considering a policy that was long unthinkable: a federal requirement that every American show identification before casting a ballot. But as the party tries to pass voting-rights legislation before the next election, it is ignoring a companion proposal that could ensure that a voter-ID law leaves no one behindan idea that is as obvious as it is historically controversial. What if the government simply gave an ID card to every voting-age citizen in the country?

Voter-ID requirements are the norm in many countries, as Republicans are fond of pointing out. But so are national ID cards. In places such as France and Germany, citizens pick up their identity card when they turn 16 and present it once theyre eligible to vote. Out of nearly 200 countries across the world, at least 170 have some form of national ID or are implementing one, according to the political scientist Magdalena Krajewska.

In the American psyche, however, a national ID card conjures images of an all-knowing government, its agents stopping people on the street and demanding to see their papers. Or at least thats what leaders of both parties believe. The idea is presumed to be so toxic that not a single member of Congress is currently carrying its banner. Even those advocates who like the concept in theory will discuss its political prospects only with a knowing chuckle, the kind that signals that the questioner is a bit crazy. There are only three problems with a national ID: Republicans hate it, Libertarians hate it, and Democrats hate it, says Kathleen Unger, the founder of VoteRiders, an organization devoted to helping people obtain ID.

Admittedly, this is probably not the best time to propose a new national ID. A large minority of the country is rebelling against vaccine passports as a form of government coercion. Yet public opposition to a national ID has never been as strong as political leaders assume. The idea has won majority support in polls for much of the past 40 years and spiked to nearly 70 percent in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. In a nationwide survey conducted this summer by Leger for The Atlantic, 51 percent of respondents favored a national ID that could be used for voting, while 49 percent agreed with an opposing statement that a national ID would represent an unnecessary expansion of government power and would be misused to infringe on Americans privacy and personal freedoms. Support was far higher63 percentamong respondents who said they had voted for Joe Biden in 2020 than it was among those who said they had voted for Donald Trump (39 percent).

The best argument for a national ID is that the nations current hodgepodge of identifiers stuffs the wallets of some people but leaves millions of Americans empty-handed and disenfranchised. Studies over the years have found that as many as one in 10 citizens lacks the documentation needed to vote. Those who do are disproportionately Black, Hispanic, poor, or over the age of 65. The Atlantic poll suggests that the gap remains: 9 percent of respondents said they lacked a government-issued ID, although a much smaller share (2 percent) said that was the reason they did not vote in 2020. Because the overwhelming majority of Americans do have IDs, we dont realize theres this whole other side of the country thats facing this massive crisis, says Kat Calvin, who launched the nonprofit Spread the Vote, which helps people obtain IDs.

Read: How voter-ID laws discriminate

The United States gives every citizen a Social Security card with a unique nine-digit number, but the paper cards lack a photograph. Passports have photos, but barely more than one-third of Americans currently have one thats not expired. By far the most common form of photo ID is a state-issued drivers license, but many elderly and poor citizens dont drive, nor do a significant number of Americans who live in large cities and rely on mass transit.

Opposition to national ID remains among groups on the libertarian right, such as the Cato Institute, as well as civil-liberties advocates on the left, such as the ACLU. But even they acknowledge that the fears of an all-knowing government sound a bit ridiculous in an era when Americans freely hand over so much of themselves to companies such as Google, Facebook, and Apple. We do have a national ID, Michael Chertoff, a former secretary of homeland security under President George W. Bush, told me. Its operated by giant tech companies, where every place you are, everything you do, everything you search for is recorded in some fashion and integrated as a matter of managing your data. Were locking the window, and weve got the front door wide open.

The idea of linking voting to a single ID card was not always so far-fetched. In 2005, a bipartisan commission led by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker endorsed a federal voter-ID requirement. The panel recommended that the emerging Real ID, a product of one of many security reforms Congress passed after September 11, be used for voting. The Real ID Act set minimum security standards for drivers licenses and other IDs that are used to board flights and enter federal buildings. It wasand is, as the federal government makes clear 16 years laterexplicitly not a national ID. Even in the security-at-any-cost posture of the years following 9/11, there was a general recognition that there was an allergy to a national ID, Chertoff told me.

Some of the Democrats on the commission believed that a national ID was inevitable. The United States is moving toward a national ID, for reasons of homeland security, Lee Hamilton, the former Indiana representative and a member of the commission, wrote to his colleagues in a memo obtained by The Atlantic. That moment was the closest the two parties have come to a consensus on voter ID in the past 20 years. But despite a push by Carter for a unanimous endorsement, three Democrats on the commissionincluding former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschledissented from its headline recommendation.

Democrats in Congress ensured that the idea went nowhere. The day after the commission released its recommendations, Barack Obama, then in his ninth month as a senator, stood alongside Representative John Lewis of Georgia to denounce the ID proposal as a mistake and a solution in search of a problem. The commission had called for voter ID even as it acknowledged within its report that the issue the requirement purports to solvevoter fraudwas extremely rare. Carter defended the proposal as a corrective to the restrictive ID laws that Republican-led states had already begun to pass. Other Democrats, though, now see a damaging legacy for the Carter-Baker commission: It coated the idea of voter-ID laws with a bipartisan gloss, allowing Republican-led states to justify unnecessary restrictions on the liberty of many Americans to cast a ballot, Spencer Overton, one of the panels Democratic dissenters, told me.

The goal of the Carter-Baker commissions recommendation was to endorse a federal ID standard for voting while requiring statesand perhaps, eventually, the federal governmentto make secure IDs available to every citizen free of charge. But thats not what happened. In 2001, just 11 states required ID to vote. The movement has exploded in the two decades since, aided by a Supreme Court ruling in 2008 upholding a voter-ID law in Indiana, the 2010 wave election that empowered Republicans across the country, and the 2013 Supreme Court decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act. Now 36 states have voter-ID laws on the books.

To understand why Democrats have so strenuously opposed voter-ID laws over the past two decades, consider the experience of Spread the Vote. With a staff of 16 and a budget of $1.6 million, the organization now operates in 17 states that require an ID to vote. Calvins staff and volunteers work with peoplemany of whom are homeless or were recently incarceratedto assemble and pay for the necessary documents. Securing just a single valid ID can take days or weeks. In its four years of existence, Spread the Vote has been able to get IDs for about 7,000 people. The organization estimates that the number of eligible voters in the U.S. who lack the IDs they need to cast a ballot is at least 21 million.

Read: How the government learned to waste your time

Generally, Democrats have long believed that negotiating with Republicans over ID laws was pointless because the GOPs insistence on them was less about protecting ballot integrity than about shaping the electorate to its advantage by suppressing the votes of people likely to back its opponents. Its hard not to see it as a part of a comprehensive strategy to engineer outcomes, Deval Patrick, the former Massachusetts governor (and, briefly, a 2020 presidential contender), told me.

The Democratic Party is taking a new look at a federal ID standard this year out of desperation. Democrats in the Senate need Joe Manchin of West Virginia to support their push for voting-rights legislation, and in June, he circulated a set of policies he wanted to see in a revised bill. One would require voter ID with allowable alternatives (utility bill, e.g.) to prove identity to vote. His single-line proposal makes no mention of requiring a photo. Many states, including Texas, already allow alternatives to presenting a photo ID, although the exceptions vary widely.

Read: The strange elegance of Joe Manchins voter-ID deal

The most surprising aspect of Manchins floated idea was the reaction of Democratic leaders. None of them shot it down. Stacey Abrams, who has fought restrictive voting laws nationwide since narrowly losing her 2018 bid to become Georgias governor, said she could absolutely support that provision. Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, the Houses third-ranking Democrat and a close ally of President Joe Biden, was also okay with it. Ive never, ever said I was opposed to voters IDing themselves, Clyburn told me. A guy cant just walk off an airplane from a foreign country and walk into a voting booth and say, I want to vote. You have to ID yourself. Clyburn said an ID law just has to be equitable: The government cant, as some red states do, accept a hunting license as a form of ID for voting but not a student ID.

To Calvin, however, the initial acquiescence of Democrats such as Abrams and Clyburn to an ID proposal was a betrayal. My reaction was blinding rage followed by massive heartbreak and disappointment, she told me. A utility bill, she said, was a meaningless alternative for most of the people she tries to assist. My whole job is helping people who dont have utility bills get IDs, she said. What they were saying is: If you dont have a home or an apartment or if your name isnt on the lease on that home or apartment, you dont deserve to vote, you dont deserve to participate in democracy.

Calvin told me she would enthusiastically support a national voter-ID law on one condition: if it followed immediately after the creation of a national ID for everybody, with a plan and a budget to implement it. She suffers no illusions about the likelihood of that happening, however. Its a pipe dream, she said. Calvins right. Democrats may be open to requiring voter ID, but the prospect of a national ID is still too hot to touch.

After Clyburn spent several minutes explaining the kind of ID law he could support, I asked him whether the solution was simply to create an ID for everyone. The lawmaker responsible for counting votes in the House stopped me immediately. Im not into that, he said. I pressed him, bringing up the Carter-Baker commission, the use of national ID in other countries. I know where youre going with this, Clyburn replied. Im not there.

Visit link:
Voter ID: Why Doesn't America Have a National ID Card? - The Atlantic