Obama Yields, Allowing Congress Say on Iran Nuclear Deal
An
unusual alliance of Republican opponents of the nuclear deal and some
of Mr. Obama’s strongest Democratic supporters demanded a congressional
role as international negotiators work to turn this month’s nuclear
framework into a final deal by June 30. White House officials insisted
they extracted crucial last-minute concessions. Republicans — and many
Democrats — said the president simply got overrun.
“We’re
involved here. We have to be involved here,” said Senator Benjamin L.
Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s ranking Democrat, who served as a
bridge between the White House and Republicans as they negotiated
changes in the days before the committee’s vote on Tuesday. “Only
Congress can change or permanently modify the sanctions regime.”
The
essence of the legislation is that Congress will have a chance to vote
on whatever deal emerges with Iran — if one is reached by June 30 — but
in a way that would be extremely difficult for Mr. Obama to lose,
allowing Secretary of State John Kerry to tell his Iranian counterpart
that the risk that an agreement would be upended on Capitol Hill is
limited.
As
Congress considers any accord on a very short timetable, it would
essentially be able to vote on an eventual end to sanctions, and then
later take up the issue depending on whether Iran has met its own
obligations. But if it rejected the agreement, Mr. Obama could veto that
legislation — and it would take only 34 senators to sustain the veto,
meaning that Mr. Obama could lose upward of a dozen Democratic senators
and still prevail.
Why
Mr. Obama gave in after fierce opposition was the last real dispute of
what became a rout. Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, said Mr.
Obama was not “particularly thrilled” with the bill, but had decided
that a new proposal put together by the top Republican and Democrat on
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made enough changes to make it
acceptable.
“We’ve
gone from a piece of legislation that the president would veto to a
piece of legislation that’s undergone substantial revision such that
it’s now in the form of a compromise that the president would be willing
to sign,” Mr. Earnest said. “That would certainly be an improvement.”
Senator Bob Corker,
Republican of Tennessee and the committee’s chairman, had a far
different interpretation. As late as 11:30 a.m., in a classified
briefing at the Capitol, Mr. Kerry was urging senators to oppose the
bill. The “change occurred when they saw how many senators were going to
vote for this, and only when that occurred,” Mr. Corker said.
Mr. Cardin said that the “fundamental provisions” of the legislation had not changed.
But
the compromise between him and Mr. Corker did shorten a review period
of a final Iran nuclear deal and soften language that would make the
lifting of sanctions dependent on Iran’s ending support for terrorism.
The
agreement almost certainly means Congress will muscle its way into
nuclear negotiations that Mr. Obama sees as a legacy-defining foreign
policy achievement.
The
Senate is expected to vote on the legislation this month, and House
Republican leaders have promised to pass it shortly after.
“Congress
absolutely should have the opportunity to review this deal,” the House
speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, said Tuesday. “We shouldn’t just count
on the administration, who appears to want a deal at any cost.”
White House officials blitzed Congress in the days after the framework of a nuclear deal
was announced, making 130 phone calls to lawmakers, but quickly came to
the conclusion that the legislation could not be blocked altogether.
Moreover, officials increasingly worried that an unresolved fight could torpedo the next phase of negotiations with Iran.
“Having
this lingering uncertainty about whether we could deliver on our side
of the deal was probably a deal killer,” said a senior administration
official, who asked for anonymity to describe internal deliberations.
Under
the compromise legislation, a 60-day review period of a final nuclear
agreement in the original bill was in effect cut in half, to 30 days,
starting with its submission to Congress. But tacked on to that review
period potentially would be the maximum 12 days the president would have
to decide whether to accept or veto a resolution of disapproval, should
Congress take that vote.
The
formal review period would also include a maximum of 10 days Congress
would have to override the veto. For Republicans, that would mean the
president could not lift sanctions for a maximum of 52 days after
submitting a final accord to Congress, along with all classified
material.
And
if a final accord is not submitted to Congress by July 9, the review
period will snap back to 60 days. That would prevent the administration
from intentionally delaying the submission of the accord to the Capitol.
Congress could not reopen the mechanics of a deal, and taking no action
would be the equivalent of allowing it to move forward.
Mr. Corker also agreed to a significant change on the terrorism language.
Initially,
the bill said the president had to certify every 90 days that Iran no
longer was supporting terrorism against Americans. If he could not,
economic sanctions would be reimposed.
Under
the agreement, the president would still have to send periodic reports
to Congress on Iran’s activities regarding ballistic missiles and
terrorism, but those reports could not trigger another round of
sanctions.
The
measure still faces hurdles. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, fresh off
the opening of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination,
dropped plans to push for an amendment to make any Iran deal dependent
on the Islamic Republic’s recognition of the State of Israel, a
diplomatic nonstarter.
“Not getting anything done plays right into the hands of the administration,” Mr. Rubio said.
Senator
Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, abandoned an amendment to make
any Iran accord into a formal international treaty needing two-thirds of
the Senate for its ratification, but he, too, said it could be revived
before the full Senate.
Mr.
Earnest said the president also wanted no more changes. “We’re asking
for a commitment that people will pursue the process that’s contemplated
in this bill,” he said.
Democrats had implored Mr. Obama to embrace the legislation.
“If
the administration can’t persuade 34 senators of whatever party that
this agreement is worth proceeding with, then it’s really a bad
agreement,” Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat on the Foreign
Relations Committee, said. “That’s the threshold.”
No comments:
Post a Comment