Confronting hardliners in Iran, Congress

Confronting hardliners in Iran, Congress

With less than seven weeks before the deadline to reach a nuclear deal with Iran, a wall of resistance is being built in Washington that threatens to scuttle any agreement. 

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) wants any deal submitted to Congress within three days of signing for debate, hearings, and a vote. Under his proposal, Congress would hold a non-binding “vote of disapproval” that would not have the force of law but could be a spoiler.

Corker insists his amendment will give Congress a chance to review any executive agreement with Iran, although, unlike a treaty, it does not require Senate ratification. He tried to attach it to an Israel-related bill, with the backing of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, hoping that would make it veto proof. But Foreign Relations Committee Chair Robert Menendez (D-NJ) pulled the bill in the face of strong administration objections. 

Republican efforts to require a congressional vote endorsing any nuclear deal with Iran are transparent partisan maneuvers meant to embarrass President Obama, but which ultimately could drag the United States into another protracted war its citizens don’t want and its treasury can’t survive.

Pro-Israel groups that are consorting with the GOP lawmakers are, in fact, endangering Israel by thwarting diplomatic efforts to end the nuclear crisis, thereby increasing the chances of a war that inevitably would result in attacks against the Jewish state.

The administration strongly opposed Corker’s bill as an intrusion on the president’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy. It also fears a similar deal-killing retaliatory move in the Iranian Majlis or legislature, where hardliners oppose any compromise with the Great Satan and don’t want to surrender anything, even if it is something Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says they don’t want.

The Revolutionary Guard and other hardliners in Tehran, who hold a strong majority in parliament, are betting that if even there is no deal, the United States doesn’t have the stomach for another war. They think Barack Obama is bluffing; they heard his West Point commencement speech and got the impression he is a reluctant warrior who, unlike his predecessor who branded their country part of the axis of evil, prefers to “resolve our differences peacefully.” 

The White House had good reason to question the political intentions of those backing the Corker amendment and similar measures in the House. The administration also objects on constitutional grounds, saying it would limit the president’s authority to negotiate with foreign countries and would set a bad precedent.

Congress will have an opportunity to vote later on. The president has limited authority to ease some sanctions but permanently removing them will require an act of Congress. When that time comes there will not only be a debate but more importantly a chance to evaluate Iran’s performance. Any deal will be phased in, allowing Iran to demonstrate — and Congress to evaluate — its commitment and compliance.

Iran has an incentive to comply. It knows it can’t get the long-term trade and investment deals it seeks with the West if potential partners know the United States could revoke the agreement and impose new sanctions if it finds Tehran moving across the nuclear threshold. Tehran also wants to break out of international isolation, revive its economy and be a recognized regional leader.

Congress needs to be kept informed but trying to micromanage the negotiations is a non-starter. 

The administration has a strong riposte to the Republican parry. The GOP may be tempted to try to hand Obama a major defeat, but do they want to go to the polls with Democrats accusing them of trying to take the country into another war in the Middle East?

President Obama can speak to the nation from the Oval Office and say:

“We’ve got a deal. We and our allies have negotiated a breakthrough agreement — one that is more effective and durable than what would be achieved through the use of force. This means that Iran has moved back from the nuclear threshold, that it will be subject to intense inspections and that if it cheats, we will be prepared to use all the force necessary to prevent it from building a nuclear weapon. 

“This would not have been possible without our strong enforcement of bipartisan economic and diplomatic sanctions. But this partnership is now being threatened by a Republican-led effort to block the agreement because it does not do everything they would like, however unrealistic their demands may be. 

“The rejection of this agreement will not bring an Iranian surrender but carries the possibility of another unwanted war in a Muslim country. I am sure that is not what the American people want.

“My fellow Americans, we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.”

read more: