In Defense of the Corker Bill

I rarely disagree with my friends Andy McCarthy and Marc Thiessen. But I seriously disagree with their recent arguments against the Corker-Cardin bill on the Iran nuclear deal. It would be a huge mistake for GOP members of Congress to abandon the Corker bill, and it is doubtful that many will.

One reason some conservatives have railed against the Corker bill is that it lets Obama off the hook of having to present an Iran deal for Senate ratification as a treaty. But Obama is not on that hook now. And besides, nobody would like to see the deal enshrined as a treaty more than he. A treaty would bind future presidents and Congresses to a deal that Iran is certain to violate in ways big and small from the start.

He literally has a greater chance of winning the Powerball lottery than of winning Senate ratification for any version of his Iran deal as a treaty. So instead he has to offer Iran a deal that future presidents and Congresses will be able to abandon as soon as he leaves the White House. Considering that we have virtually no way to stop him from lifting sanctions pursuant to waiver authorities already in the law, the fact that he has no hopes of negotiating an actual treaty with Iran is a good thing. Contrary to the contention of many critics, there is nothing in the deal that intrinsically requires, as a matter of constitutional law, that it be presented as a treaty, and no way to stop it from getting executed as an executive agreement.

Andy argues that the Corker bill “cannot succeed in blocking the Iran deal unless Republicans not only find 67 Senate votes but also 290 House votes.” He predicts with certainty that Republicans will never find the necessary votes.

Both parts of this assertion are off the mark.

First, under current law there is nothing anyone can do to stop Obama from waiving most of the congressional sanctions — unless Congress votes to curtail the waiver authority, which is just what the Corker bill does. Under the bill, Congress would be able to block the president from lifting further U.S. sanctions for a substantial review period. During this period, the president will have to make a number of certifications that he will have great difficulty making if the deal ends up where it seems to be headed, and he may never be able to make them, at least not without ignoring blatant violations.

And because Obama has already bowed to the reality of Democratic opposition to his Iran policy, and has agreed to sign the Corker bill, we don’t need 67 votes to curtail the waiver authority. Hence, the Corker bill leverages a broad bipartisan consensus to force the president to give up some of the waiver authority he needs to negotiate a clean agreement. That is reason enough to vote for the bill. It also provides a clean way for the next president to blow up the deal and reimpose sanctions in his first 90 days, and every 90 days thereafter, another good reason to vote for the bill.

I agree with Andy and Marc that the bill doesn’t give us everything we want. But we have essentially nothing now. And not getting everything we want is not a reason to throw away what the Corker bill does give us.

Which brings me to the most serious flaw in the conservative opposition to the Corker bill, which is that it discounts, and thereby weakens, the promising bipartisan consensus now emerging against the Iran deal. Opponents tend to see this as a fight not just against Obama but against Democrats in general. That is a big mistake. Democrats have already proven more than once that they’re willing to abandon the president completely and side with Republicans where Iran is concerned. In 2010 the Congress rammed major sanctions down Obama’s throat against his explicit opposition, on a 99–0 vote.

The potential that Democrats will abandon the president again is the most serious threat to the Iran deal, and could entail the collapse of the president’s entire Middle East policy. But if Republicans start fighting among themselves, and start sniping at Democrats, the Democrats will be far more likely to close ranks around the president.

This would give Obama further evidence that he is an amazing genius who doesn’t need Congress or allies or anyone else. It’s a mistake to encourage that delusion. Obama needs congressional support for his foreign policy, or that policy will simply be undone by the next president. That’s the leverage we have against Obama’s disastrous Iran deal. It may not be much, but it might be just enough to set in motion a chain of events that will blow up the deal. That’s especially true if the Middle East continues to unravel and Iran continues to advance its bid for regional hegemony, demonstrating for all to see just how dangerous Obama’s Iran policy is.

This is a classic example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. The bill’s managers were on track to securing votes on a package of amendments that would have strengthened the Corker bill further, and would have put still more distance between many Democrats and the president. Now the prospects for those amendments, if not the entire bill, are in doubt.

Congress should amend the Corker bill on a bipartisan basis, and send it to the president. It doesn’t give us everything we want. But it offers us something that its critics aren’t offering: a major step in the right direction, and the possibility of more to come.