Even if Congress Fails to Block Iran Deal, it Can Still Affect Implementation

The Obama administration’s fight to prevent Congress from blocking the Iran nuclear deal may be won, since there appear to be enough Democratic votes in the House and the Senate to sustain a presidential veto of any resolution of disapproval. 

But continued political skirmishing could affect the White House’s broader goal, which is to make certain the deal works.

Several GOP presidential candidates have threatened to “terminate this deal on day one,” as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker did again Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Walker said he was sending a “clear message today” to the rest of the world that if he won the White House, tough sanctions would be imposed on Tehran. And he warned America’s negotiating partners and other nations that start dealing with Tehran: “If you want to do business, you have got to decide, are you going to do it with Iran or are you going to do it with America?”

Walker’s proposal to Iran, he said, would be to “get rid of your illicit nuclear infrastructure.”

Meanwhile, Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) have a pending bill to authorize a 10-year extension of the Iran Sanctions Act, which expires next year. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said last month that the sanctions extension would be brought up and passed after the debate on the nuclear pact.

Iranian officials have said that extending the authorization for sanctions could be considered a violation of the agreement.

… 

In the next two weeks, while debating the resolution of disapproval, Congress could take up a suggestion by Orde Kittrie, a professor of law at Arizona State Univeristy, writing in the Wall Street Journal. He proposed that lawmakers could, as part of the resolution, “specify what changes would be needed to meet congressional requirements.”

Kittrie also said, “Our negotiating partners should not be surprised if Congress takes the less drastic step of returning it to the president for renegotiation.”

… 

Read the full article here.