Iran deal critics move to prevent UN vote before Congress review - Erez Linn and News Agencies

by Erez Linn and News Agencies

Senate Foreign Affairs Committee chair and ranking Democrat urge the administration not to enable a Security Council vote on Iran deal this week • Presidential hopeful Rubio: We treat the ayatollah in Tehran with more respect than Israel's prime minister.

 

Senators Bob Corker (left) and Robert Menendez | Photo credit: AP

Members of the U.S. Congress, representing both parties, are taking measures to prevent a United Nations Security Council vote, scheduled for Monday, on the recently signed nuclear agreement between Iran and six world powers. 

Under the terms of the deal, most of the sanctions currently imposed on Iran will be lifted by the end of the year. The Security Council is expected to approve the deal. 

Republican Senator Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the ranking Democrat on the committee, Sen. Robert Menendez, sent an urgent letter to U.S. President Barack Obama last week reminding him that under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, "a bill which 98 Senators and 400 Representatives supported, and you [Obama] signed," the president cannot begin lifting American sanctions for a period of at least 30 days from the day the agreement was signed in order to allow Congress time to review and vote on the agreement. 

"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," they wrote. 

In their view, the United Nations vote violates Obama's pledge to allow "the American people and Congress to get a full opportunity to review this deal."

The House Committees on Foreign Affairs and on Homeland Security issued a similar letter last week. Minority (Democratic) Whip Steny Hoyer has remarked that he felt Obama should hold off implementing the agreement. 

The Security Council is expected to approve the agreement on Monday, ensuring that the sanctions are gradually lifted over the course of the coming years in exchange for Iranian cooperation with the international community. The Security Council's vote will apply only to the sanctions imposed by the U.N. since 2007 and not to sanctions imposed by the American administration or Congress. In practice, however, it will signal to international companies that they can begin seeking commercial ties with Iran. 

In the Obama administration's view there is no legal reason not to allow both -- the Congress review and the U.N. vote -- to happen simultaneously, since the agreement itself will only begin being implemented 90 days after it was signed. 

In an effort to deflect criticism, White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz said Thursday that the administration would not begin lifting American sanctions until after Congress had reviewed the agreement. 

Meanwhile, in an opinion piece titled "Why I'm troubled by the Iran nuclear deal" on a U.S. news portal, Menendez wrote that the White House was deceiving the American public.

"Those who dare ask uncomfortable, but necessary questions are labeled warmongers or party infidels. This approach is intellectually dishonest, robbing the public of the judicious debate this topic requires," he wrote.

According to Menendez, the White House changed its tune midway. "Today, the White House commitment that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' has morphed to this 'best bad deal' is better than no deal," he wrote.

To Republican presidential candidates, rolling back the agreement would be a top priority if they were to win the White House.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says he would "terminate the bad deal with Iran on day one" and work to persuade allies to reinstate economic sanctions lifted under the deal. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry concurred, saying one of his first actions in office would be to "invalidate the president's Iran agreement."

Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, said that while he would consult with allies about the deal on his first day in office, he was inclined to "move toward the abrogation of it." He added that he would not do it on "day one" and accused other candidates who declared that they would of misleading their voters. 

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio told The Associated Press he would withdraw from a deal even if allies objected. "We now live in a world were we treat the ayatollah in Tehran with more respect than the prime minister of the only pro-American, free enterprise democracy in the Middle East, the State of Israel," the Florida senator said Saturday.

The next president has no legal obligation to implement the nuclear agreement, which is a political document, not a binding treaty.

But if there's no sign Iran is cheating, it's unlikely the European allies, who spent nearly two years negotiating alongside the U.S., would be compelled to walk away and reinstate sanctions. And it's nearly impossible to imagine Russia and China, which partnered with the U.S., Britain, France and Germany in the talks, following a Republican president's lead.

Erez Linn and News Agencies

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=26979

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.