Sen. Ed Markey announced Wednesday that he will back the Iran agreement.
Twenty-six Democratic senators now do so.
Foes of the Iran nuclear agreement clearly hope that Associated Press revelations about the way inspections allegedly will work at the military base in Parchin will give them enough votes to overcome a presidential veto of a resolution of disapproval of the pact in September. But, as noted in my own analysis
here Wednesday and a
look at the numbers Thursday by
The Washington Post, getting enough votes in both the Senate and House to override a veto is almost certainly out of reach. If one house sustains the veto, it sticks.
Thanks to the Nuclear Agreement Review Act passed last spring, Congress has 60 days to assess the agreement negotiated with Iran by the United States and five other world powers to curtail its nuclear program in exchange for removal of tough economic sanctions that have crippled Iran's economy. It was obvious from the moment the NARA was approved that opponents of any agreement could probably get enough Senate votes for a resolution of disapproval to get past a potential filibuster by Democrats supportive of the president. But getting the two-thirds votes needed to override President Obama's inevitable veto always has seemed like a bridge too far. And so it remains.
Twenty-six Senate Democrats have announced they will support the agreement and another five are "leaning yes." Two have said they will vote no. That leaves 13 who have not made any public statements making it clear how they are likely to vote. But general ideology and past voting records indicates that several of them will surely support the agreement. Among these are: Sen. Maria Cantwell (WA); Sen. Debbie Stabenow (MI); Sen. Barbara Mikulski (MD); and Sen. Patty Murray (WA). If just three of those four decide to support the agreement, that provides the needed 34 votes to sustain an override. See The Hill's Senate whip count here.
In the House, the numbers are also stacked against the opponents of a deal. While all 246 Republicans can be expected to support a resolution of disapproval, they would still need 44 of the 188 House Democrats to get the 290 votes needed to override a veto. See The Hill's House whip count here.
Shortly after the NARA passed in May, 150 Democrats signed the Schakowsky-Doggett-Price letter of support for the negotiations with Iran. So far, only one of those signers, Rep. David Scott of Georgia, has announced he will oppose the agreement. Two others, Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California and Rep. Brad Ashford of Nebraska, have indicated that they are leaning against the agreement. But if all three of them oppose it and all of the Democrats who didn't sign the pro-negotiations letter also oppose it, that still totals only 41 House Democrats joining the Republicans. Not enough for an override.
Opponents hope the AP report about Parchin will change the math. See commentary on that development below the fold.
Join us in urging senators and representatives to support the agreement and vote no on any resolution of disapproval.
The AP reported that a confidential draft document that came into its possession shows that International Atomic Energy Agency would permit Iranians to carry out inspections at Parchin without any U.N. inspector on the ground. The inspection of Parchin was a key issue in negotiations that require Iran to explain its alleged efforts in the past to carry out a secret military program to create a nuclear bomb.
The news sparked several sneering comments from Republicans. For instance:
"Trusting Iran to inspect its own nuclear site and report to the U.N. in an open and transparent way is remarkably naïve and incredibly reckless," he said in a statement. "It is time for the Obama Administration to come clean with the American people and provide all information about these secret side agreements between Iran and the IAEA."
But the IAEA
said the AP is wrong:
The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief on Thursday rejected as "a misrepresentation" suggestions Iran would inspect its own Parchin military site on the agency's behalf, an issue that could help make or break Tehran's nuclear deal with big powers. [...]
"I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work," IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano said in an unusually strongly worded statement on Thursday.
And Max Fisher, who has been writing excellent analyses of the Iran agreement at Vox,
reported:
The bottom line here is that this is all over a mild and widely anticipated compromise on a single set of inspections to a single, long-dormant site. The AP, deliberately or not, has distorted that into something that sounds much worse, but actually isn't. The whole incident is a fascinating, if disturbing, example of how misleading reporting on technical issues can play into the politics of foreign policy. [...
The headline made it sound like Iran would get to self-inspect, which would indeed be appalling. Readers were given the impression that President Obama had made a catastrophically foolish concession to the Iranians; that our much-touted inspections regime was a big joke. And indeed, a number of prominent political journalists tweeted out the story with exactly this alarmed interpretation.
"If true" turns out to be a major issue here, as upon closer examination the inflammatory headline, as it has been widely interpreted, appears to largely not be true.
So, your choice: sloppy reporting or another round of the propaganda that has been mounted against the agreement.