By Michael Adler
March 30, 2010

Is bipartisan action possible in Washington after the drama of drawn political knives over health care? Surprise, the answer is “yes.” Cooperation is taking place over one of the thorniest problems facing the United States today -- Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

In fact, the bipartisan consensus that exists in Congress may be more hardline than the White House, as Senators and House members try to tip the balance from trying to engage with Iran to putting pressure on it. The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009, which called for cutting off gasoline supplies to Iran, passed the House by 412-12 and the Senate by a summary voice vote, a sign of wide support from both Democrats and Republicans.

Congress was, to say the least, far from such a consensus on health care. Maybe this is because foreign policy can be more clear-cut than domestic issues. President Obama’s health initiative, for instance, is an answer to a problem involving the evolution of the nation’s finances over generations. Whether Iran gets a nuclear bomb is more immediate, with the concern being that it could develop into a clear and present danger.

In any case, Obama’s approach to Iran is one towards which his Republican predecessor was already moving. George W. Bush took office not even wanting Iran to have a nuclear program but modified this during his two terms to endorse a peaceful civilian atomic program for the Islamic Republic and offer talks on the alleged military side of Iran’s nuclear work. Bush held to a precondition however, that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the process that makes what can be power reactor fuel but also the explosive material for an atomic bomb. Obama, and his fellow Democrats, have dropped that precondition but not their insistence that Iran rein in its enrichment and provide guarantees it does not seek the bomb. Iran’s continuing refusal to do this will only stiffen the resolve, and the agreement, from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to face the Iranian issue squarely.