President Obama thinks his administration has won a key victory in striking a nuclear accord with Iran, and he’s asking his secretary of State to protect it. But when John Kerry comes to Congress on Tuesday in the hopes of persuading Congress to back the pact, he should count on anything but a warm welcome.
Members are already saying the interim deal between world powers and Iran does nothing to dull Tehran’s nuclear threat, and members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee are already sharpening their knives: “Despite what the administration has said, this agreement does not hold Iran’s nuclear program in its tracks,” Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., told National Journal Daily.
For Kerry, it will be a familiar role: He’s fresh off a Middle East trip attempting to reassure allies about the Iran deal.
But the stakes are especially high as a new round of talks resumes this week in Vienna. The White House has said negotiations might unravel if members of Congress follow through on threats to levy more sanctions, even if they take effect down the road.
Members, however, are not acquiescing. They fear sanctions relief will give Iran a “lifeline” just as it’s beginning to cry uncle, Royce said, which could revive Iran’s economy and, eventually, allow it to gain the capability to build a nuclear weapon.
Nailing down sanctions now — even if they are to begin after the six-month deal between world powers and Iran expires or founders — would give the U.S. “some leverage at the table,” Royce argued. “Just because the president wants to play with a weaker hand doesn’t mean that Democrats and Republicans in Congress should oblige.”
In the Senate, new sanctions to target Iranian oil exports and revenue, foreign-exchange reserves held overseas, and additional sectors of the Iranian economy are under consideration. In the House, which passed similar sanctions in June, Majority Leader Eric Cantor is spearheading a bill to narrowly define the terms of an acceptable final nuclear deal.
Tuesday’s hearing may turn into a wonkfest over contentious points on the negotiations, which aim to unwind a decadelong standoff over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
Members of Congress — as well as many leaders in Israel — object to the agreement because it does not require Iran to suspend enrichment and reprocessing activities. Critics say it’s not enough that the Nov. 23 deal is meant to keep Iran’s uranium enrichment below 5 percent, far below weapons-grade levels, and neutralize its stockpile of 20 percent-enriched uranium in exchange for some $7 billion in sanctions relief.
“It’s a terrible deal,” said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., in a recent interview. “I do not believe it’s in the world’s interest to allow Iran to have the capability to enrich and process uranium.”
Iran is not exactly helping matters, either, given its continued construction of a plutonium reactor in Arak. Royce said lawmakers from both sides of the aisle raised that issue last week during a classified briefing with the State Department’s Wendy Sherman and Treasury’s David Cohen.
Amid the suspicion, there’s fresh gossip on Capitol Hill about a secret plan to constrict Obama’s flexibility on sanctions. Although the president has the legal option to waive the measures temporarily if it is in the U.S. national security interest, some aides on the Hill say Congress is seeking ways around him. “We have looked at how to restrict the president’s ability to endlessly waive sanctions,” a Senate aide said.
But all this may prove to be more bark than bite. Already there are fissures between those who say the deal is doomed to fail and those who want to give the White House a chance to negotiate. “None of us here take great stock of these numerous legislative proposals on Iran sanctions,” said one House Democratic aide.
The longer Congress waits and diplomatic talks continue, the “less appetite there is to pass legislation that could somehow undermine the progress or implementation of the interim agreement — especially when there’s absolutely no way the president is going to allow anything like this to become law,” the aide said. “It’s just tough talk.”
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
Speaking at the funeral of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, President Obama "compared Peres to 'other giants of the 20th century' such as Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth who 'find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.'" Among the 6,000 mourners at the service was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama called Abbas's presence a sign of the "unfinished business of peace" in the region.