Opponents of the deal can take a page from Senator Obama’s book.
While it could be persuasively argued that President Obama has shown disregard for Congress ever since taking office, now, in pursuit of a nuclear deal with Iran, his disregard has descended into contempt and disdain for both the institution and its members. This can be seen in several of his actions.
First, the president has refused to follow the Constitution’s procedure for agreements like the Iran nuclear deal by submitting the agreement to the Senate for its advice and consent. The last-ditch effort of Congress to be allowed some sort of review of the agreement resulted in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, sponsored by Senators Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) and Ben Cardin (D., Md.), the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This legislation is a poor substitute for constitutional advice and consent, which requires that before the United States can be bound to a treaty two-thirds of the Senate must consent to the agreement. Under threat of a veto, Congress was forced to accept terms under which a two-thirds majority of both houses would be required to stop the agreement.
With the Corker/Cardin legislation as the only vehicle for congressional review of the Iran nuclear deal — known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — the president then failed to comply with its terms. Corker/Cardin requires submission to Congress of all documents, including side deals, relevant to the agreement. Congress and the American people are supposed to believe that two “separate arrangements,” referred to publicly by IAEA, have not been made available to the president or the secretary of state, and thus could not be made available to Congress or the American people. A recent Associated Press report — which the Obama administration has not disputed — reveals that pursuant to one of these side deals, Iran will inspect its own Parchin military site, where nuclear testing activities are believed to have been undertaken. The substance of the other IAEA “separate arrangement” is unknown, and other side deals may exist.
Third, the Obama administration has consistently misrepresented the JCPOA and what it does or does not do. One example concerns the IAEA Additional Protocol (AP), which gives the IAEA enhanced powers to inspect nuclear sites and acquire data. Secretary Kerry, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that under the JCPOA, Iran must ratify the AP and must comply with the AP pending ratification. This is simply not true. Iran has agreed to “provisional application” of the AP, but it also agreed to that in 2003, and complied for only two years. It can cease its provisional application of the AP at will, with no consequences. Moreover, Iran has not agreed to ratify the AP. It has only agreed that after the IAEA says Iran is in compliance, it will submit the protocol to its legislative body to seek ratification.
A letter signed by 56 nuclear experts says that Obama’s deal ‘virtually guarantees Iran a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.’
Two other examples of misrepresentation are the president’s assertions that the deal prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and that it is verifiable. On September 2, a letter signed by 56 experts on nuclear weapons, arms control, nonproliferation, and intelligence was sent to President Obama and Congress. The letter and its attachment highlight fatal flaws in the deal. Regarding the president’s promise that it would stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, the experts conclude that “it virtually guarantees Iran a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.” They also conclude that “verification, far from being strengthened to address Iran’s 30-year history of noncompliance, is rendered completely ineffective by significant ambiguities in the agreement, the lack of an oft-promised ‘anytime, anywhere’ inspection regime and the addition of cumbersome bureaucratic procedures that ensure delay or denial of suspect site inspections.”
Finally, there is the White House’s refusal to respect the request of Senators Corker and Cardin that the administration postpone seeking UN approval until Congress was able to complete its review. The senators wrote to President Obama on July 16:
We are deeply concerned that your administration plans to enable the United Nations Security Council to vote on the agreement before the United States Congress can do the same. Doing so would be contrary to your statement that “it’s important for the American people and Congress to get a full opportunity to review this deal . . . our national security policies are stronger and more effective when they are subject to the scrutiny and transparency that democracy demands.”
The administration, in a public, indeed international, slap in the face of Congress, pushed through a UN Security Council resolution approving the deal on July 20.
The same president who has repeatedly said “no deal is better than a bad deal” has now demanded that Congress agree with him that “a bad deal is better than no deal.” Under extreme White House pressure, Democrats have agreed to support the Iran nuclear deal even while noting that it is a flawed agreement. Does party loyalty really demand such abject submission? Members of Congress are charged with representing ALL their constituents. Two-thirds of Americans have said they oppose the Iran nuclear deal. Democratic members must standing up to the president’s disrespect, disdain, and contempt for them and for the American people.
When Barack Obama was a senator, the Senate voted four different times on whether to override a presidential veto. For each of the four votes, Senator Obama is recorded as “not voting.” Democrats in Congress should take a page from Senator Obama’s book — and be elsewhere during the votes.
— Paula A. DeSutter is the former assistant secretary of state for verification and compliance (2002–09).