Iran nuclear deal turns up lobbying heat on Congress

Washington and its five negotiating partners concluded the nuclear negotiations with Iran in Vienna on July 14.

The administration appears to be in need of the full-bore sales pitch.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday that the U.S. retains all its military options in dealing with Iran under the deal.

The deal, in which Iran agrees to curtail its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of billions of dollars in economic sanctions, must be approved by Congress in the coming weeks.

White House officials are increasingly finding themselves on the defensive against criticism from Republicans and a few Democrats, as well as vehement opposition from Israel, reported by three officials, who all spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal political deliberations.

Carter said there is a possibility that the nuclear agreement will move forward, but will not be “successfully implemented”. “We can go about, back to our program, ‘” Kerry said.

At the same time, Carter said that the successful implementation of the agreement would be better than taking military action because a strike would be temporary and likely would make Iran “irreconcilably resigned” to getting a nuclear weapon.

Congress is set to vote on the bill in mid-September, and with much of the public skeptical of the deal, the pressure is expected to intensify on both sides.

The August congressional recess could prove to be a rocky period for some Democrats who will face constituents questioning them about why the Obama administration struck a nuclear deal with Iran. Graham, a former lawyer, engaged his somewhat prosecutorial style with Carter, asking whether Iran’s supreme leader controls the military and whether his religious views “compel him over time to destroy Israel and attack America?”

“You strongly do not want us to override a presidential veto, but if we do, that triggers certain American laws”, California Rep. Brad Sherman asked. Democratic Representative Jim McDermott of Washington said when asked whether Obama’s fellow Democrats would support him.

“I have a fundamental concern that 15 years from now Iran will essentially be off the hook”, he said. “He’s a very persuasive person and he knows his subject so I have to assume that if minds are open, some will be affected”. “What I think does present an issue is if either Congress or [the executive] take all of the sanctions that are being lifted, put a new label on them, and say they are being reimposed”. “I reject that”, she said. “In a real world, you have to make real-world decisions”.

Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Illinois, hasn’t decided either.

Underscoring the hard-fought gains and losses, New York Rep. Grace Meng, a Democratic member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, came out against the deal on Wednesday. Countering that Iran had funded terrorist organizations even with strict sanctions in place, members of the administration said walking away from the deal would not guarantee the money held in foreign banks and owed to Iran would stay there.

Following the breakfast, Lew predicted that the White House would secure the votes to sustain a veto if Congress ends up rejecting the deal. Marino made his decision after yesterday’s House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing where he questioned Secretary of State John Kerry about the safety of America and our allies.

“To be honest with you, that is absolutely astounding that you have not seen the documents about the requirement for verification”, McCain said.

Dempsey, who said he kept his nine-sentence opening remarks brief because he had only recently testified before the same Senate Armed Services Committee, disputed the description. Iran, he said, has a “clear record of cheating”. But they will be subject to “an intrusive inspection regime led by the global Atomic Energy Agency to ensure access to any suspect facility inside Iran, including military facilities”, says Burns.