Make a Deal with Iran -- and Congress

Ruth Marcus on Apr 8, 2015

As to improvements: One provision offensive to the administration would require it to periodically certify that Iran "has not directly supported or carried out an act of terrorism against the United States or a United States person anywhere in the world." This introduces an extrinsic, and difficult to guarantee, element into the nuclear deal.

But I am told it was inserted at the behest of New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez, who stepped aside from his role as ranking member on Foreign Relations after his bribery indictment. With Menendez out of that role, the provision should be gone as well.

So the biggest remaining practical beef is that the Corker bill would block sanctions from being lifted during the 60-day period for congressional review. But since sanctions are going to be removed in phases in any event, this problem does not seem insurmountable.

In fact, given that the final agreement still needs to be negotiated, the prospect of congressional involvement, and disapproval, could give the administration added leverage with the Iranians.

Which leaves the biggest remaining precedential beef: that the Corker bill could set a debilitating example for presidential ability to forge international agreements. That's a fair worry in general -- and especially with a Congress this obstreperously disrespectful.

But it does not apply in this case. "No president should be able to bargain a framework for repeal of a congressional statute without Congress weighing in," Kaine told me in an interview. That just seems like constitutional common sense.

========

Ruth Marcus' email address is ruthmarcus@washpost.com.