A resolution affirming the threats to world stability from a nuclear weapons-capable Islamic Republic of Iran.
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]
ID: G000359
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Introduced
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another brilliant example of congressional theater, masquerading as a serious policy initiative. Let's dissect this farce and expose the real motivations behind SRES 43.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this resolution is to affirm the "threats to world stability" posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. How original. It's not like we've been hearing this same tired rhetoric for decades. The objectives are twofold: (1) to grandstand and appear tough on Iran, and (2) to provide a thinly veiled justification for future military action or increased sanctions.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This resolution is a masterclass in stating the obvious. It reiterates various statements from Iranian officials that are perceived as threatening, while conveniently ignoring the context and nuances of these statements. The provisions are largely symbolic, with no concrete changes to existing law or policy. It's a feel-good exercise for politicians to pretend they're doing something about Iran.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include:
1. Iranian government officials, who will likely respond with more inflammatory rhetoric. 2. Israeli and American politicians, who will use this resolution as a talking point to justify their hawkish stances on Iran. 3. Lobbyists for the defense industry, who will salivate at the prospect of increased military spending in response to an "Iranian threat." 4. Iranian civilians, who will suffer under increased sanctions and potential military action.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this resolution is negligible, except as a propaganda tool. It will not change Iran's behavior or nuclear ambitions. Instead, it may:
1. Escalate tensions between the US, Israel, and Iran, increasing the likelihood of conflict. 2. Embolden hardliners in Iran, making it more difficult to negotiate a peaceful resolution. 3. Provide a pretext for increased military spending and interventionism in the Middle East.
In conclusion, SRES 43 is a cynical exercise in political posturing, designed to appease special interests and pander to public fears. It's a classic case of "diagnosing" a symptom (Iranian rhetoric) while ignoring the underlying disease (regional instability, imperial overreach, and the militarization of US foreign policy).
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
No campaign finance data available for Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 181 — Department of State Instead of pressuring the Iranian theocracy to move toward democracy, the Obama Administration threw the brutal regime an economic lifeline by giving hundreds of billions of dollars to the Iranian government and providing other sanc- tions relief. This economic relief did not moderate the regime, but emboldened its brutality, its efforts to expand its nuclear weapons programs, and its support for global terrorism. Former President Obama has admitted his lack of support for the Green Movement during his Administration was an error and blamed it on poor advisors—yet those same advisors are involved with the Biden Administration’s insistence on reducing pressure on the theocracy and resurrecting a nuclear deal. The next Administration should neither preserve nor repeat the mistakes of the Obama and Biden Administrations. The correct future policy for Iran is one that acknowledges that it is in U.S. national security interests, the Iranian people’s human rights interests, and a broader global interest in peace and stability for the Iranian people to have the democratic government they demand. This decision to be free of the country’s abusive leaders must of course be made by the Iranian people, but the United States can utilize its own and others’ economic and diplo- matic tools to ease the path toward a free Iran and a renewed relationship with the Iranian people. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Once a model of democracy and a true U.S. ally, the Bolivarian Republic of Ven- ezuela (Venezuela) has all but collapsed under the Communist regimes of the late Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. In the 24 years since Hugo Chavez was first elected Venezuelan president in 1999, the country has violently cracked down on pro-democracy citizens and organizations, shattered its once oil-rich economy, empowered domestic criminal cartels, and helped fuel a hemispheric refugee crisis. Venezuela has swung from being one of the most prosperous, if not the most prosperous, country in South America to being one of the poorest. Its Communist leadership has also drawn closer to some of the United States’ greatest interna- tional foes, including the PRC and Iran, which have long sought a foothold in the Americas. Indeed, Venezuela serves as a reminder of just how fragile democratic institutions that are not maintained can be. To contain Venezuela’s Communism and aid international partners, the next Administration must take important steps to put Venezuela’s Communist abusers on notice while making strides to help the Venezuelan people. The next Administration must work to unite the hemisphere against this significant but underestimated threat in the Southern Hemisphere. Russia One issue today that starkly divides conservatives is the Russia–Ukraine con- flict. The common ground seems to be recognition that presidential leadership in 2025 must chart the course. — 182 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l One school of conservative thought holds that as Moscow’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine drags on, Russia presents major challenges to U.S. interests, as well as to peace, stability, and the post-Cold War security order in Europe. This viewpoint argues for continued U.S. involvement including military aid, economic aid, and the presence of NATO and U.S. troops if necessary. The end goal of the conflict must be the defeat of Russian President Vladimir Putin and a return to pre-invasion border lines. l Another school of conservative thought denies that U.S. Ukrainian support is in the national security interest of America at all. Ukraine is not a member of the NATO alliance and is one of the most corrupt nations in the region. European nations directly affected by the conflict should aid in the defense of Ukraine, but the U.S. should not continue its involvement. This viewpoint desires a swift end to the conflict through a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia. l The tension between these competing positions has given rise to a third approach. This conservative viewpoint eschews both isolationism and interventionism. Rather, each foreign policy decision must first ask the question: What is in the interest of the American people? U.S. military engagement must clearly fall within U.S. interests; be fiscally responsible; and protect American freedom, liberty, and sovereignty, all while recognizing Communist China as the greatest threat to U.S. interests. Thus, with respect to Ukraine, continued U.S. involvement must be fully paid for; limited to military aid (while European allies address Ukraine’s economic needs); and have a clearly defined national security strategy that does not risk American lives. Regardless of viewpoints, all sides agree that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is unjust and that the Ukrainian people have a right to defend their homeland. Furthermore, the conflict has severely weakened Putin’s military strength and provided a boost to NATO unity and its importance to European nations. The next conservative President has a generational opportunity to bring res- olution to the foreign policy tensions within the movement and chart a new path forward that recognizes Communist China as the defining threat to U.S. interests in the 21st century. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Peace and stability in Northeast Asia are vital interests of the United States. The Republic of Korea (South Korea) and Japan are critical allies for ensuring a free and open Indo–Pacific. They are indispensable military, economic, diplomatic, and technology partners. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North
Introduction
— 181 — Department of State Instead of pressuring the Iranian theocracy to move toward democracy, the Obama Administration threw the brutal regime an economic lifeline by giving hundreds of billions of dollars to the Iranian government and providing other sanc- tions relief. This economic relief did not moderate the regime, but emboldened its brutality, its efforts to expand its nuclear weapons programs, and its support for global terrorism. Former President Obama has admitted his lack of support for the Green Movement during his Administration was an error and blamed it on poor advisors—yet those same advisors are involved with the Biden Administration’s insistence on reducing pressure on the theocracy and resurrecting a nuclear deal. The next Administration should neither preserve nor repeat the mistakes of the Obama and Biden Administrations. The correct future policy for Iran is one that acknowledges that it is in U.S. national security interests, the Iranian people’s human rights interests, and a broader global interest in peace and stability for the Iranian people to have the democratic government they demand. This decision to be free of the country’s abusive leaders must of course be made by the Iranian people, but the United States can utilize its own and others’ economic and diplo- matic tools to ease the path toward a free Iran and a renewed relationship with the Iranian people. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Once a model of democracy and a true U.S. ally, the Bolivarian Republic of Ven- ezuela (Venezuela) has all but collapsed under the Communist regimes of the late Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. In the 24 years since Hugo Chavez was first elected Venezuelan president in 1999, the country has violently cracked down on pro-democracy citizens and organizations, shattered its once oil-rich economy, empowered domestic criminal cartels, and helped fuel a hemispheric refugee crisis. Venezuela has swung from being one of the most prosperous, if not the most prosperous, country in South America to being one of the poorest. Its Communist leadership has also drawn closer to some of the United States’ greatest interna- tional foes, including the PRC and Iran, which have long sought a foothold in the Americas. Indeed, Venezuela serves as a reminder of just how fragile democratic institutions that are not maintained can be. To contain Venezuela’s Communism and aid international partners, the next Administration must take important steps to put Venezuela’s Communist abusers on notice while making strides to help the Venezuelan people. The next Administration must work to unite the hemisphere against this significant but underestimated threat in the Southern Hemisphere. Russia One issue today that starkly divides conservatives is the Russia–Ukraine con- flict. The common ground seems to be recognition that presidential leadership in 2025 must chart the course.
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.