Obama to veto bill giving Congress a say in Iran deal

How bad is the nuclear deal being negotiated with Iran? So bad that the president doesn't want Congress to weigh in on whether it's a good or bad agreement.

The Hill:

"The President has been clear that now is not the time for Congress to pass additional legislation on Iran," National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said in a statement to The Hill. 

"If this bill is sent to the President, he will veto it. We are in the final weeks of an international negotiation. We should give our negotiators the best chance of success, rather than complicating their efforts," she added.
 
The bill has nothing to do with Iran. Why should the Iranians object if Congress wants to give their opinion on a deal? How could it possibly interfere with the negotiations?
 
The threat comes after a handful of lawmakers introduced a measure requiring Obama to submit text of an agreement with Iran to Congress. It would also prohibit the White House from lifting Iranian sanctions for two months while Congress debated the deal.
 
“There are few national security priorities for our country more important than preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and any agreement that seeks to do this must include Congress having a say on the front end," Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), one of the bill's cosponsors, said in a statement. 
 
Corker introduced the measure along with Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the committee ranking member; Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.); and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) on Friday.
 
It arrives just weeks before the administration is set to come to terms on a framework over Iran's nuclear program. Members of both parties have expressed concerns that the administration would concede too much to Iran ahead of the March 24 deadline. 
 
In a statement, Corker called the veto threat "disappointing."
 
"Congress put these sanctions in place and helped bring Iran to the table with the administration working against the effort the whole way. As a result, Congress should decide whether a final nuclear deal with Iran is appropriate enough to have the congressionally mandated sanctions removed," Corker said.
 
Negotiations over Iran's nuclear program are likely to dominate discussion in Washington in the coming week, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint session of Congress to rally against a potentially unsatisfactory deal. Administration officials have pushed back, urging others not to judge the deal prematurely.

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to "advise and consent" to treaties. That's why the president won't call the deal a "treaty." He will call it something else - a memorandum of understanding or some other diplomatic cover that will obligate the US to keep it while shutting Congress out.

Of course, the entire enterprise depends on the Iranians keeping their word. Given the fact that they've continuously violated terms of the interim agreement, we can predict with some confidence that they will interpret the agreement in a way that will allow them to continue on the path to building a bomb.

This is what the president doesn't want Congress to vote on.

 

 

How bad is the nuclear deal being negotiated with Iran? So bad that the president doesn't want Congress to weigh in on whether it's a good or bad agreement.

The Hill:

"The President has been clear that now is not the time for Congress to pass additional legislation on Iran," National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said in a statement to The Hill. 

"If this bill is sent to the President, he will veto it. We are in the final weeks of an international negotiation. We should give our negotiators the best chance of success, rather than complicating their efforts," she added.
 
The bill has nothing to do with Iran. Why should the Iranians object if Congress wants to give their opinion on a deal? How could it possibly interfere with the negotiations?
 
The threat comes after a handful of lawmakers introduced a measure requiring Obama to submit text of an agreement with Iran to Congress. It would also prohibit the White House from lifting Iranian sanctions for two months while Congress debated the deal.
 
“There are few national security priorities for our country more important than preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and any agreement that seeks to do this must include Congress having a say on the front end," Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), one of the bill's cosponsors, said in a statement. 
 
Corker introduced the measure along with Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the committee ranking member; Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.); and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) on Friday.
 
It arrives just weeks before the administration is set to come to terms on a framework over Iran's nuclear program. Members of both parties have expressed concerns that the administration would concede too much to Iran ahead of the March 24 deadline. 
 
In a statement, Corker called the veto threat "disappointing."
 
"Congress put these sanctions in place and helped bring Iran to the table with the administration working against the effort the whole way. As a result, Congress should decide whether a final nuclear deal with Iran is appropriate enough to have the congressionally mandated sanctions removed," Corker said.
 
Negotiations over Iran's nuclear program are likely to dominate discussion in Washington in the coming week, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint session of Congress to rally against a potentially unsatisfactory deal. Administration officials have pushed back, urging others not to judge the deal prematurely.

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to "advise and consent" to treaties. That's why the president won't call the deal a "treaty." He will call it something else - a memorandum of understanding or some other diplomatic cover that will obligate the US to keep it while shutting Congress out.

Of course, the entire enterprise depends on the Iranians keeping their word. Given the fact that they've continuously violated terms of the interim agreement, we can predict with some confidence that they will interpret the agreement in a way that will allow them to continue on the path to building a bomb.

This is what the president doesn't want Congress to vote on.