It was clear for some time that President Obama had the votes in the Senate to block an override of his promised veto of any congressional resolution rejecting the Iran nuclear deal. And on Tuesday it appeared there were no longer enough votes in the Senate to even pass a resolution of disapproval by majority vote.
The battle, however, is not over. There will still be a congressional debate over the agreement regardless of whether there will ever be a final vote on a resolution. And that debate can be expected to be very revealing.
Significantly, virtually all of the members of the Senate and House who’ve come out in support of the agreement have publicly agonized over their serious misgivings and most of those misgivings seemed to be in sync with the reservations expressed by opponents. Indeed, there seems to be a consensus among supporters that it is a lousy deal but the only one we have. All of this will undoubtedly make for wide-ranging and even profound inquiries in the Senate and the House.
Moreover, not a day seems to go by without some new problematic issue arising about the provisions of the agreement. Thus, we learned in numbing succession about the limited term of the agreement; about there not being “any time, anywhere” access to suspected Iranian nuclear sites; about Iran’s retention of much of its nuclear infrastructure and capacity to refine uranium; about the 24-day advance warning international inspectors have to give Iran before gaining access to suspected sites; about the cumbersome and ultimately unworkable process for adjudicating charges of cheating against Iran; about the wholly unrealistic sanctions “snapback” procedure; about the various vague escape clauses legally entitling Iran to withdraw from the agreement; and about the revelation that international inspectors would have no access to Iranian military bases, even Parchin, a long-suspected nuclear weapons development site (Iran would basically self- inspect and report to outside inspectors).
A full and systematic congressional airing of these issues could well induce supporters to reconsider their positions. And yet, according to a Washington Post op-ed article by Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kans.) and David B. Rivkin Jr., a constitutional litigator who served in the Justice Department and White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, another emerging issue seems to have the potential of being a deal breaker all by itself.
The congressional review of the Iran nuclear agreement will be conducted pursuant to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, the so-called Corker bill.
As Pompeo and Rivkin note,
Instead of submitting an agreement through the constitutionally proper mechanism – as a treaty requiring approval by a two-thirds majority in the Senate – the act enables President Obama to go forward with the deal unless Congress disapproves it by a veto-proof margin. Unfortunately, the president has not complied with the act, jeopardizing his ability to implement the agreement.The act defines “agreement,” with exceptional precision, to include not only the agreement between Iran and six Western powers but also “any additional materials related thereto, including…side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.
Yet as Secretary of State Kerry conceded in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, there are side agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency to which the United States is not privy. One of the side deals reportedly relates to Iran’s self-inspection of facilities such as Parchin. These are all part of the Iranian nuclear agreement.
