Senate Votes to Give Congress Review Over Iran Nuclear Deal

By Josh Siegel

The Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill Thursday to give Congress at least some voice over a proposed nuclear deal with Iran.
The bill, which passed 98-1, would allow Congress to prevent the removal of legislative sanctions against Iran and force the Obama administration to periodically show that Tehran is following the terms of any nuclear deal.
“Without this bill, there is no review,” said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “No bill, no review. No bill, no oversight. The American people want [Congress] on their behalf to ensure that Iran is accountable.”’
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., the leading congressional opponent of talks with Tehran, was the only senator to vote against the bill. The legislation now goes to the House for a vote.

 Cotton had led a fight to alter the bill, including trying to force a vote on an amendment to make a nuclear deal contingent on Iran entirely ending its nuclear program and another measure—offered by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.—requiring Tehran to recognize Israel’s right to exist. The Obama administration opposes those provisions, believing they would imperil nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., prevented debate on the amendments for fear they would derail a fragile bipartisan agreement.
In a statement, Cotton blamed Democrats—not McConnell—for blocking his amendment, saying, “Congress must stand up and protect America from a nuclear Iran, and it’s regrettable that Democratic intransigence blocked our efforts to strengthen this bill.”
The compromise legislation—a bill Corker negotiated with Democrats and that President Obama supports—would give Congress 30 days to review a nuclear pact with Iran.
During that time, Obama would be able to waive sanctions against Iran that were imposed by presidential action but would have to leave in place sanctions that Congress previously levied.
Congress could only offer a resolution disapproving the deal. If the House and Senate could get enough votes to overcome a presidential veto—which is considered doubtful—Obama would have to leave the congressionally mandated sanctions in place.
Some accepted the compromise bill reluctantly, believing that it does not give Congress enough power to actually stop an Iran nuclear deal lawmakers don’t like.
“The bill in theory gives Congress more leverage to block the Obama administration’s ability to lift congressionally-imposed sanctions on Iran,” said Jim Phillips, an expert on the Middle East at The Heritage Foundation, in an email to The Daily Signal.
“But in practice, it is likely to be little more than a speed bump slowing the administration’s rush to sign a risky nuclear deal with Iran.”
Others who wanted the bill to have stronger oversight argued that the Iran deal should be handled as a treaty, requiring two-thirds of the Senate to approve it.
However, over the last century presidents have often treated deals with foreign countries as executive agreements not subjected to the Constitution’s treaty process.
Michael O’Hanlon, the director of research for the foreign policy program at Brookings Institution, said in an email to The Daily Signal that the compromise legislation should be enough.
“It’s not inappropriate for Congress to have some say—as long as it stops short of a completely equal role as negotiator in the process, since we can only have one negotiator and that’s the executive branch prerogative,” O’Hanlon said. “So, at least, it would seem to strike a reasonable balance.”