Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell says it’s ‘the best deal acceptable to Iran’ but it remains unclear what options Congress has to block the agreement

Iran nuclear deal: historic agreement in Vienna – live updates Read more

Republican leaders reacted with deep suspicion to the landmark nuclear deal with Iran unveiled on Tuesday, portraying the agreement between all major world powers as a flawed and dangerous move that would face stiff opposition from Congress.

Kickstarting what is expected to be a concerted effort to undermine the accord over the next two months, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate majority leader, accused the White House of “reaching the best deal acceptable to Iran, rather than actually advancing our national goal”.

The Republican leader later took to the Senate floor to argue that the agreement had failed to meet the most basic requirements.

“Remember: ending Iran’s nuclear program was supposed to be the point of these talks in the first place,” he said. “What’s already clear about this agreement is that it will not achieve – or even come close to achieving – that original purpose.”

Iran has agreed to dismantle much of its nuclear infrastructure and submit to rigorous controls and inspections which, the US and other world powers agree, significantly diminish the prospects of Tehran acquiring a nuclear weapon.



Iran nuclear deal: the key points Read more

The 159-page agreement, which includes a main text and five technical annexes, was unveiled in Vienna after weeks of marathon talks and sticks to the contours of a framework agreement sealed in April.

But within hours of its announcement, Republicans and some Democratic hawks in Washington, who have long said the bottom line is that there should be no nuclear program on Iranian soil whatsoever, signaled their determination to sabotage an agreement they argue seeks to manage – rather than prevent – an Iranian nuclear program and endangers Israel.

Critics of the deal also contend that, over time, it will enable Iran to expand its military, including through the controversial acquisition of ballistic missiles. McConnell’s counterpart in the House of Representatives, speaker John Boehner, said the agreement would embolden Iran and be “likely to fuel a nuclear arms race around the world”.

“If in fact it’s as bad a deal as I think it is at this moment, we’ll do everything we can to stop it,” he said.

Despite enjoying majorities in both the Senate and House, Republicans privately concede their options for blocking the agreement are extremely limited.

Under the process for oversight agreed between the White House and Congress in April, Barack Obama has five days to formally present the deal and associated documents to the legislature.

That, in turn, will begin a 60-day congressional review period, after which both chambers will put forward a resolution to register their approval or disapproval of the deal.

However, that vote will not be binding, and any serious attempt to thwart the agreement will require additional legislation specifically aimed at preventing the president from alleviating sanctions imposed on Tehran.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest President Obama announces the Iran nuclear deal on Tuesday. Link to video

Obama has promised to use his veto against “any legislation that prevents the successful implementation” of the deal. Congressional critics of the deal would therefore need to pass legislation with more than a two-thirds majority in both chambers – the threshold required to overcome a presidential veto.

White House officials say they are not complacent about the need to persuade lawmakers of the wisdom of the deal. But they appear optimistic that enough support remains among Democrats to guarantee that more than a third of lawmakers in both chambers stand by the president.

“We’re confident in our ability to get the support necessary to ensure the successful implementation of the deal,” a senior administration official told reporters, on the condition of anonymity. “But we take nothing for granted and we want to make sure we’re making the case to these members.”

That case appears to be rooted as much in what officials say would be the dire consequences if the US now walked away from the agreement than the merits of the deal which, officials acknowledge, is a compromise stemming from two years of complex negotiations and deal-making.

Although Democrats on Capitol Hill were reluctant to fully endorse the deal, they appeared to agree with the administration’s broader rationale.

Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, said she was supportive of what she knows of the accord and was optimistic that Obama would not lose support from within his own party.

“I think people are going to understand that we’re in a deteriorating situation in the Middle East, and this offers the opportunity to turn the page so that if it works – and I believe, based on what I know, that it can work – Iran gives up its program, whether it’s true or false, to build a bomb,” Feinstein, a senator from California, told reporters.

Especially critical to Obama will be whether Democrats facing tough re-election battles next year stand with him on Iran.

At least one such Democrat, West Virginia senator Joe Manchin, would not take a definitive position on the deal but signaled that he agreed with Obama’s broader view of engagement as a means toward preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

“I believe that American strength is rooted in both military might and diplomacy, and I am pleased that we have given diplomacy a chance,” Manchin said.

But it seems doubtful such an argument – that the deal, while imperfect, is the least bad option on the table – would be likely to persuade Republican critics.

Bob Corker, the Republican chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, who forged the agreed-on oversight mechanisms with the White House and will be a key figure in the weeks ahead, struck a decidedly pessimistic tone.

“I would say the agreement has taken a downward trend,” Corker told reporters after a closed-door Republican meeting, citing in particular the eventual lifting of the arms embargo on Iran. “There’s numbers of issues that are going to be of great concern.”

Corker, a senator from Tennessee, added that while he was “very skeptical”, he would hold hearings over the next two weeks to ensure that members of Congress are fully aware of what they are voting on.

“Those who believe that this truly is going to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon will vote for it. Those who believe that is not the case, and the world is not going to be safer – and in some ways it may pave the way for them to get a nuclear weapon – will vote against it,” Corker said. “That’s our responsibility.”

I'll vote for the Iran nuclear deal because I want peace, not war | Hank Johnson Read more

The agreement comes at a pivotal moment in the electoral cycle, with candidates seeking the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations expected to be pressed on their position on the agreement. The division already appears to be falling along broadly partisan lines.

The leading Democratic candidate, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, is understood to have told a closed meeting of House Democrats on Capitol Hill that she endorsed the agreement. However, she struck a more cautious tone while addressing the media after the meeting.

“Based on what I know now, this is an important step in putting a lid on Iran’s nuclear program,” she said, adding there was still “a lot of concern” about Iran’s state-sponsored terrorism. “This agreement will have to be enforced vigorously, relentlessly.”

In a statement later on Tuesday, the former secretary of state offered her endorsement: “I support the agreement because it can help us prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”

Clinton’s main rival for the Democratic ticket, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, was far less calibrated, declaring the deal “a victory for diplomacy over saber-rattling [that] could keep the United States from being drawn into another never-ending war in the Middle East”.

He later told reporters on Capitol Hill that “the devils are in the details”, but nonetheless hailed the agreement as “a huge breakthrough”.

In contrast, no Republican presidential candidate spoke in positive terms about the deal, and two leading Republican contenders – Florida senator Marco Rubio and Wisconsin governor Scott Walker – signaled that, if elected, they would seek to reverse the agreement.

“Failure by the president to obtain congressional support will tell the Iranians and the world that this is Barack Obama’s deal, not an agreement with lasting support from the United States,” Rubio, a member of the Senate foreign relations committee, said in a statement.

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, another frontrunner, did not specifically say what action he would take if elected but described the deal as “dangerous, deeply flawed, and short-sighted”.

“The clerical leaders in Tehran routinely preach ‘death to America’ and ‘death to Israel’ – and through their acts of terror, they mean it,” he said. “This isn’t diplomacy – it is appeasement.”