The Obama administration’s fight to prevent Congress from blocking the Iran nuclear deal may be won, since there appear to be enough Democratic votes in the House and the Senate to sustain a presidential veto of any resolution of disapproval.
correction
An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed two quotations to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. It was Orde Kittrie, a law professor at Arizona State University, writing in the Wall Street Journal, who said that lawmakers could, as part of a resolution on the deal, “specify what changes would be needed to meet congressional requirements.” He also said, “Our negotiating partners should not be surprised if Congress takes the less drastic step of returning it to the president for renegotiation.” This version has been corrected.
Several GOP presidential candidates have threatened to “terminate this deal on day one,” as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker did again Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Walker said he was sending a "clear message today" to the rest of the world that if he won the White House, tough sanctions would be imposed on Tehran. And he warned America's negotiating partners and other nations that start dealing with Tehran: "If you want to do business, you have got to decide, are you going to do it with Iran or are you going to do it with America?"
Walker’s proposal to Iran, he said, would be to “get rid of your illicit nuclear infrastructure.”
Meanwhile, Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) have a pending bill to authorize a 10-year extension of the Iran Sanctions Act, which expires next year. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said last month that the sanctions extension would be brought up and passed after the debate on the nuclear pact.
Iranian officials have said that extending the authorization for sanctions could be considered a violation of the agreement.
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) has threatened to withhold the U.S. contribution for fiscal 2016 to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) if Congress does not get to see the side agreement between Iran and the IAEA on examining Tehran's past nuclear activities.
Congress has been privately briefed on that agreement, which some U.S. officials have read. But the administration does not have the papers, under a standing IAEA rule to keep such deals confidential between the agency and the countries involved.
In the next two weeks, while debating the resolution of disapproval, Congress could take up a suggestion by Orde Kittrie, a professor of law at Arizona State University, writing in the Wall Street Journal. He proposed that lawmakers could, as part of the resolution, "specify what changes would be needed to meet congressional requirements."
Kittrie also said, “Our negotiating partners should not be surprised if Congress takes the less drastic step of returning it to the president for renegotiation.”
That picks up an idea Corker floated in an Aug. 17 Washington Post op-ed. "Congress should reject this deal and send it back to the president," he wrote.
Menendez has suggested that Congress disapprove the deal but authorize continuation of the current Joint Plan of Action, which provides Iran with a $700 million-a-month lifeline, as new provisions are negotiated.
Neither Menendez, Corker nor AIPAC had any suggestion as to how President Obama could get Iran and the other world powers that negotiated the deal — Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia — to reopen talks.
There are, however, some noncontroversial steps Congress could take as it carries on its debate on the agreement.
"The Senate or House could choose to form a new task force on Iran Deal Compliance, or the Senate could reconstitute the Arms Control Observer Group or strengthen the National Security Working Group to cover these issues," wrote Sharon Squassoni, director of the proliferation prevention program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
As the deal goes forward, such groups could look at issues like regional security, support for terrorism and human rights, Squassoni added.
Under current law, the White House must already supply a variety of reports on the Iran accord to Congress, so it would be useful if there was a joint House-Senate panel or some special group to receive and go over them.
For example, the president must report to Congress within 10 days of receiving “credible and accurate” information about a “potentially significant breach or compliance incident by Iran,” and say how that breach is being cured.
In addition, every 90 days, the president must certify that Iran is “transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement, including all related technical or additional agreements.” The certification must also include that “Iran has not directly supported or carried out an act of terrorism against the United States or a United States person anywhere in the world.”
Every six months, the president must file a broader report covering Iran’s nuclear program and compliance with the accord. Among other items, it must include any “delay by Iran of more than one week in providing inspectors access to facilities, people, and documents in Iran as required by the agreement,” as well as “an assessment of whether any Iranian financial institutions are engaged in money laundering or terrorist finance activities, including names of specific financial institutions if applicable.”
The Iranians have not ignored U.S. criticism.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has supported the nuclear deal but warned: "The enmity of Zionists and Americans toward the Revolution and the Islamic Republic has not diminished. . . . The hostile and overt objectives of enemies are quite clear in their words and writings and nobody should forget that the enemy front, fully armed, has taken positions against the nation and the country."
Obama, speaking to a Jewish group on Friday, also said that the enmity between the two countries is likely to persist.
“Being for this deal does not involve pie-in-the-sky hopes about Iran. We will retain all the tools that we have to go after them,” the president said. “. . . This deal doesn’t solve all the problems about Iranian behavior. . . . Not even close.”
For previous Fine Print columns, go to washingtonpost.com/fedpage.
