Peter Roskam says the Obama administration has not complied with the review process of the
Iran nuclear agreement because it has not presented "side agreements" to Congress.
Just over a month ago, Republican Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois
announced that he had secured the 218 House votes needed to pass
H.R. 367, his resolution condemning the Iran nuclear agreement. Not exactly a surprise since not one House Republican had declared support for the agreement. And none has done so since.
On Tuesday, Roskam introduced a new resolution with the potential to delay consideration of the nuclear agreement that the House was slated to vote on Friday, specifically chosen because it's September 11, making the obvious fearmongering connection between the terrorism launched that day which Iran had nothing to do with. Christina Marcos writes:
Roskam, a former member of the GOP leadership team who serves as co-chair of the House Republican Israel Caucus, wants to force a floor vote this week that would cancel the House vote on the deal unless the White House releases the text of the “side deals” regarding nuclear inspections between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Roskam formally offered a “privileged” resolution on the House floor Tuesday afternoon that would force Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to return the text of the Iran nuclear agreement and related materials the Obama administration submitted to Congress so that they can be re-sent with the IAEA accords. The House parliamentarian would also be instructed not to recognize any documents submitted by the White House in July for purposes of establishing the deadline for Congress to vote on the Iran accord.
As a "privileged" resolution, the matter must be taken up by the House within two days, meaning there could be a floor vote on it Thursday. But the way forward on Roskam's proposal depends on whether the Republican leadership allows it or chooses to block it by disallowing it privileged status. That decision
has to be made today because the House is holding procedural vote on a resolution of disapproval this afternoon. Boehner told Politico Wednesday that conversations are being had on the subject.
Assuming Roskam's resolution were to pass the House, it would collide with the 42 Democrats in the Senate who have expressed support for the nuclear agreement. They could filibuster it. Or, if some chose not to go that far, 34 or more of them could sustain the inevitable veto from President Obama.
But, while it seems like a dead-end in terms of actually undermining the multinational agreement, it might prove useful in next year's elections. One Republican-tied group is already running television ads against two Democratic supporters of the agreement, Rep. Rick Nolan of Minnesota and Rep. Scott Peters of California. "Weak on defense" is the message, one that Republicans have employed against Democrats ever since its "who lost China" attacks of them 65 years ago.
Follow me below orange tangle for a discussion of why Roskam's resolution is ridiculous.
9:38 AM PT: A procedural vote on a proposed resolution of disapproval of the nuclear agreement with Iran has been postponed because of the revolt of rank-and-file Republicans over how Roskam's "side deals" resolution is to be handled. In the Senate, Ted Cruz is proposing a delay in voting over "side deals."
1:36 PM PT (Laura Clawson): Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is rejecting this whole line of thinking:
“As I understand law, once Sept. 17 passes is it not the case that the president will take the view that he is free to go forward,” to lift sanctions, he said.
Roskam's resolution is predicated on the contention that the Obama administration has failed to comply with the Nuclear Agreement Review Act passed last spring in which Congress authorized itself to evaluate and approve or reject any pact with Iran on its nuclear program.
Included in the wording of the act is a requirement that Congress be provided not only with the wording of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the nuclear agreement is formally known, but also "any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understands, and any related agreements..."
Such matters are so-called "side deals" that the International Atomic Energy Agency has with Iran regarding inspections of its nuclear program. Chief among them is the arrangement the IAEA has with Tehran over the Parchin military complex. Some experts believe that facility once was the site of nuclear testing related to weapons. The IAEA has developed a confidential procedure for checking out the site, but that's not good enough for Roskam and nearly 100 other representatives who early last month began demanding to see that and any other confidential arrangements.
Just calling it a "side deal" attaches a sinister nature to it. That's not how it's viewed by IAEA and other arms control experts. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation points out:
Some critics are calling this a secret side deal between the IAEA and Iran; however, this is standard operating procedure, and every such agreement the IAEA has with other countries is also confidential. This was even true during the IAEA's inspections into Libya. [...]
The arrangement specifies procedural information regarding how the IAEA will conduct its investigation into Iran's past nuclear history, including mentioning the names of informants who will be interviewed. Releasing this information would place those informants, and the information they hold, at risk.
That, of course, is of no concern to Republicans such as Roskam whose objective is to squelch the agreement any way they can.
And their alternative? Two choices. Renegotiating, which the five other world powers who negotiated with Iran alongside the United States have said is not going to happen and Dick Cheney's approach, as noted by a repentant fan of the Iraq invasion, Peter Beinart, in The Atlantic:
The closer you look, the more revealing Cheney’s litany is. Obama has been vilified for suggesting that opponents of the nuclear deal are putting the United States on the road to war. But at the end of his AEI speech, Cheney all but proposes war. Sure, he says America just needs the “credible threat of military action.” But he offers no suggestions for how Obama could make that threat credible without actually going to war. Nor does he explain why his own administration’s military threats against Iran weren’t credible during its eight years in office.
In fact, Cheney doesn’t cite historical examples of America or Israel threatening military action. He cites historical examples of America or Israel taking military action.