Why Did Senate Republicans Continue the Discussion on Iran?

American Republicans, utilizing the weaknesses of the Islamic Republic in American public opinion, viewed the continuation of voting and discussion in the Senate until the last day as an opportunity to place Obama alongside the Islamic Republic and support him in opposition to Israel. The significant decrease in American public support for the government's nuclear agreement with Iran to only 20 percent encouraged Republicans to criticize Obama's foreign policy while intensifying their electoral activities, which would determine not only the next occupant of the White House but also the outcome of all House of Representatives seats and one-third of Senate seats. Despite being confident that subsequent efforts to neutralize the president's veto power would fail and that the nuclear agreement with Iran would ultimately be implemented, Republicans used the Senate platform until the last legal voting day (the end of the 60-day deadline) to attack Obama's foreign policy and its passive nature. Before the Senate discussions on the nuclear agreement with Iran and the details of it began, all polling results from specialized institutions indicated majority public support for the agreement; however, the Senate discussions and the topic raised by presidential candidates completely changed this ratio against the agreement. In justifying and defending the nuclear agreement with Tehran, the Obama administration and Senate Democrats accepted the questionable performance of the Islamic Republic and inevitably positioned themselves alongside their Republican critics, arguing that 'neutralizing the threat of nuclearization of America's enemy is in America's interest.' Critics argue that the mentioned agreement will not eliminate the nuclear threat from the Islamic Republic in the medium term; rather, it will lead to strengthening America's enemy in the region by providing more financial resources. During the Senate discussions on Tuesday night, Republicans harshly criticized the secret agreement signed by the International Atomic Energy Agency with Tehran, accusing the Obama administration of both compromising with Tehran and granting unjustified concessions to reach the nuclear agreement, and of circumventing the legislature and secrecy. Recent statements by Ali Khamenei regarding 'eliminating Israel within the next 25 years' provided another opportunity to place the Obama administration alongside a government that has the elimination of Israel on its agenda. The continued efforts of Republicans for voting effectively placed supporters directly against opponents of the vote. In a simple argument in a democratic society, support for the voting of elected representatives on an agreement or government action (in domestic or foreign affairs) is the nature of democracy, justifying the position and importance of the legislature and thus supported by public opinion; however, the Obama administration and Senate Democrats are trying to prevent the legislature from entering this issue to avoid failure. The decision of Senate Republicans to conduct a third vote, despite the clear outcome being known in advance, provided an opportunity to address the performance of the Obama administration in foreign policy. Influential Republican Senator John McCain, while criticizing the nuclear agreement with Tehran, addressed the civil war in Syria, blaming the Obama administration for creating the current situation in that country and the displacement of half the population and the loss of up to 250,000 lives due to the failure to use America's deterrent power and the decision to refrain from military confrontation with the Assad regime, while simultaneously comparing the military presence of the Islamic Republic in Syria and its defense of the Assad regime with America's silence. Referring to Obama's recent trip to Alaska under the pretext of changing a geographical name in that state, the simultaneous presence of foreign military ships (Russian and Chinese) near the coastal waters of Alaska was criticized by senators as a symbol of weakness; a criticism that was intensified in Senate discussions by referring to Russia's recent actions in Syria to build a new airport and the Kremlin's sending of military equipment to defend the Assad regime. American Republicans expected that by voting for the third time in the Senate and continuing to raise critical issues regarding the nuclear agreement and the foreign policy performance of the Obama administration, they would further align domestic public opinion with them and, on the other hand, prepare the psychological ground for imposing legal restrictions to prevent the lifting of sanctions and condition their lifting on the release of American prisoners held by the Islamic regime and the declaration of recognition (impossible) of Israel by Tehran; handing over the outcome of a battle to the government while imposing maximum costs on the victorious party, and at the same time deciding to continue the war with the weakened government until the next government is determined.