The UN Security Council
voted unanimously this morning to approve the deal negotiated between Iran and the P5+1 (France, UK, Russia, China, the United States and Germany). The deal lifts international sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran limiting its nuclear program. The deal also includes snap-back provisions if Iran is found to be out of compliance.
Also earlier this morning, the EU approved the Iran Deal.
The next steps are for the International Atomic Energy Agency to certify that iran has taken certain steps which are outlined in the agreement.
Under the deal, the major powers which signed the accord don't need to take any further action for 90 days. Then they are required to begin preparations so they are able to lift sanctions as soon as the IAEA verification report is submitted.
http://www.reuters.com/...
The US Congress also has 60 days to review the agreement, after which they can vote to either approve or disapprove of the agreement. If they disapprove, the president said he would veto. If the Congress is able to override the veto (which seems unlikely--see below), Congress then can only prevent the President from lifting Congress-imposed sanctions. The other parties to the agreement would still go ahead with lifting of sanctions.
The Fight In Congress
The Iran agreement is not a treaty. Congress does not have the authority or mandate to "ratify" it. However, in May Congress passed the Iran Nuclear Review Act, which gave it the authority to approve or disapprove the deal. The Nuclear Review Act is a watered down version of what Congress originally asked for, which was the ability to amend the deal. The President had promised he would not sign such a bill. Here's what White House Press Secretary Josh Earnst said as the bill was making its way through Congress:
"The bill that has passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with bipartisan support essentially is a vote to vote later on congressional sanctions and not the decision about whether or not to enter into the agreement, that would certainly resolve some of the concerns we've expressed about the authority that is exercised by the president of the United States to conduct foreign policy."
In any case, a plurality of Americans and the majority of democrats are in favor if the deal, and the actual law makes it difficult for Congress to "kill" the deal. But that won't stop some people from trying.
Israel and the Israel Lobby Declare War on Iran Deal
In the days before the deal was signed, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu became increasingly hysterical, tweeting out such apocalyptic messages such as:
On cue, AIPAC formed a new 501(c)4 group (so donors don't have to be named) to fight the newly signed deal. And look at all our favorites on the advisory board:
AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel organization, has launched a new advocacy group to oppose the Iran nuclear deal.
Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, a new 501(c)4 group, is dedicated to informing the public “about the dangers of the proposed Iran deal,” spokesman Patrick Dorton told the New York Times, which first reported the group’s launch.
The group’s advisory board includes five former Democratic members of Congress: Sens. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Joseph Lieberman (Conn.). Former Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), who served on the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee, will also advise the group.
http://www.politico.com/...
The Jewish Press is also reporting that AIPAC is considering using its "nuclear option," that is, it is considering promising (and delivering) primary challenges to democrats who vote for the deal.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is staunchly opposed to the Iran nuclear deal and is lobbying Congress hard to reject it. Should it appear that Congress is unable to override a presidential veto on a resolution to reject the Iran deal, some AIPAC officials are contemplating a “nuclear option,” threatening to punish lawmakers who will side with the president on this issue.
http://www.jewishpress.com/...
Hmm. I thought going nuclear was bad.
We'll see.