Iran Scenario
1nc Iran Scenario
Obama is walking a fine line now to build support for Iran deal —Dems are on the
fence and PC is key
Lillis 7/19, staff writer at The Hill, (Mike, 7/19/15, Iran deal tests Dems' loyalty to Obama, The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/international/248371-irannuclear-deal-tests-democrat-loyalty-to-obama)//kap
President Obama's
nuclear agreement with Iran is the latest test of the Democrats' loyalty toward their ally in the
White House.
Off a contentious trade debate that highlighted Democratic divisions and infuriated Obama’s liberal base, even the Democrats most
critical of the Iran deal are walking a fine line.
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), for instance, has emerged
as the leading Democratic critic in the upper chamber, warning that the
agreement “legitimizes” Iran's nuclear program and sets the stage for Iran to reap billions of dollars in
financial relief it could use to bolster its stock of conventional weapons.
But Menendez has stopped
short of saying he'll join Republicans in a vote to disapprove the deal, saying he
wants first to examine the agreement more closely, both on the Foreign Relations panel and in briefings with administration
officials.
“It's
premature for some people to say they're definitely against it and for others to say they're definitely for it,”
he said. “Let's have the vetting.”
The issue is tough for Democrats because it represents Obama’s top foreign policy goal in his second
term, but is strongly opposed by Israel’s government.
The Republicans' near-unanimous objections have further complicated the politics
of the deal might not want a role in helping the GOP kill it.
— in that even Democrats wary
Rep. Brad Sherman (Calif.) is concerned that the deal sets the stage for Iran to have nuclear weapons capabilities a decade from now, but hasn't
signed on to
the Republicans' disapproval push.
He says he'd surely vote against a motion of approval if it were to hit the floor, but
measure and a vote to override Obama's promised veto of that disapproval.
he remains undecided on the more likely consideration of both a disapproval
“It's different,” Sherman said.
“A
motion of approval would, I think, morally bind this country to accept this deal not only short-term but long-term, and longresolution of disapproval, if it overrides a veto –– and those are two separate votes –– would
create a short-term crisis in our policy toward Iran, with the executive branch pushing in one direction, the congressional branch pushing in the
term it becomes unenforceable,” he explained. “A
other direction, Europe going in a third direction, and [it] might deprive us of the short-term benefits of the agreement –– the stockpiles and the centrifuge mothballing.”
Republicans are not so indecisive. They wasted no time slamming the agreement with warnings that it will launch a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race
while threatening the security of the United States and its allies, particularly Israel.
On Friday, House Republicans introduced
which is expected to get a vote in September.
their disapproval resolution, backed by more than 170 GOP lawmakers,
“This agreement fails on every level to ensure Iran never acquires a nuclear weapons capability,” Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), the head of the House Republican Israel
Caucus and lead sponsor of the resolution, said in a statement. “The unprecedented outpouring of support for this resolution proves that Congress will not rubber-stamp a
deal that severely threatens the United States and our allies by paving Iran's path to a bomb.”
Still, the
GOP.
reluctance of the Democratic critics to endorse the resolution highlights the tough road ahead for the
In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
will need Democratic backers to reach the 60 votes required to defeat a
filibuster. And while the House Republicans are expected to pass the disapproval measure through the lower chamber, they'll face a steep climb
winning over the Democratic votes needed to override Obama's promised veto.
Liberal Democrats, who make up a majority of the Caucus, are already lining up in favor of the agreement. And House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.) threw her considerable influence behind the deal Thursday, when she delivered her enthusiastic stamp of approval.
“[It's] a good product –– not only better than the status quo, not only the best possible option, but a strong, effective … proposal for keeping the peace and stopping the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” she said.
Pelosi said she's “not exactly lobbying” her troops behind the deal, but “made it very clear to them my own standing on this issue and why I think this is a good agreement.”
Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), yet
another Democrat who's voicing strong reservations with the deal but hasn't committed a
vote either way, said it's “too early to say” if Obama would have the Democratic support to sustain a veto of the
GOP’s disapproval measure.
“My sense is, based on my conversations with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it's going to be very close in both the House and the Senate,” he told CNN
Wednesday. “I believe in both chambers it's going to come right on the cusp.”
Obama has shown signs that he's taken a lesson from the trade debate –– when many Democrats felt excluded
–– and is leaving nothing to chance. He sent Vice President Biden to Capitol Hill twice this week to meet privately with House and Senate
Democrats to explain the deal and address lawmaker concerns.
There are early signals that the strategy is paying dividends.
“You make friends before you need them. I think the administration is doing it very wisely,” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said after meeting with Biden. “I disagreed with them
on trade. On this, I think they're heading in the right direction.”
Biden, for one, expressed confidence that the accord will survive the congressional gauntlet.
“I think we're going to be OK,” he said as he left the House meeting.
***Insert appropriate link and internal link story***
Obama’s political capital is key to sell Congress on the deal and prevent a veto
override --- critical to U.S. global leadership
Leverett, 7/13/15 --- professor of International Affairs at Penn State, served for over a decade in the U.S. government as a senior analyst at the CIA,
Middle East specialist for the State Department, and as senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council (Larry, “With Historic Iran Nuclear Deal
Expected, Can President Obama Sell It to Congress and the Public?” http://www.democracynow.org/2015/7/13/as_historic_iran_nuclear_deal_nears, JMP)
McConnell suggested the Obama administration will
have a difficult time convincing Congress to approve a deal with Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch
MAJORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL: Well, look, we already know that it’s going to leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state. We know that. It appears as if the
administration’s approach to this was to reach whatever agreement the Iranians are willing to enter into. So I think it’s going to be a very hard sell, if it’s completed, in
Congress.
AMY GOODMAN: The Republican
majority is expected to vote against the deal and to try to convince at least 12
Democrats to join their ranks in an attempt to defeat a presidential veto. Flynt Leverett, explain what has to happen in the United
States for the U.S. to approve this. What is the voting that will take place?
FLYNT LEVERETT: Yes. Both
houses of Congress will have 60 days to review the agreement once it’s finalized. I
think it is quite possible, if not likely, that a simple majority of members in each house will vote a so-called
resolution of disapproval in regard to the agreement. At that point, President Obama has said that he would veto those
resolutions of disapproval. And at this point, the White House seems pretty confident that they have the votes,
at least in the Senate, and perhaps in the House, as well, to sustain President Obama’s veto. So, they are confident that if you
can get to an agreement here in Vienna, that it will ultimately get through the congressional review process and will go into effect.
But obviously, during the next—you know, the 60 days following a conclusion of an agreement, the Israelis, the Saudis, their
friends and allies in the American political system, others who don’t want to see this agreement go forward
are going to be working very hard, trying to turn public opinion against the deal and trying to build
congressional support to maximize the vote against the deal.
Public opinion polls would show that Americans are open to supporting this deal, but one
of the things I really worry about is that President
Obama himself has not really made the strategic case for why doing this deal and for why building a different
kind of relationship with Iran is so strongly in America’s interest. He either talks about this as a kind of narrow arms control agreement,
but Iran is still this very bad actor, or he talks about it in terms of it being an opportunity for Iran to rejoin the international community, as he puts it. This is not the way to
sell this deal to Americans. Americans
understand that what the United States has been doing in the Middle East for the
last decade and a half has actually been profoundly against American interests. It’s also been very damaging to
Middle Easterners. But it has been profoundly damaging to America’s position in this
critical part of the world and globally. President Obama has a chance here to begin to turn that
around and put U.S. policy toward the Middle East on a more different and more productive trajectory, but
he is going to have to make the strategic case—
AMY GOODMAN: Flynt Leverett, we’re going to have to—
spend the political capital necessary to make the strategic case.
FLYNT LEVERETT: —
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to leave it there, but we’ll continue to follow this, of course.
Lack of credibility prevents effective multilateralism and causes global hotspot
escalation
Coes 11, Visiting Fellow at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, degree from Columbia University, received the prestigious Bennett Cerf
Memorial Prize (Ben, “The disease of a weak president”, The Daily Caller, 9-30-11, http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/30/the-disease-of-a-weak-president/)
The disease of a
weak president usually begins with the Achilles’ heel all politicians are born with — the desire to be popular. It leads to pandering to
results in that very politician losing
the trust and respect of friends and foes alike. In the case of Israel, those of us who are strong supporters can at least take comfort in the
different audiences, people and countries and creates a sloppy, incoherent set of policies. Ironically, it ultimately
knowledge that Tel Aviv will do whatever is necessary to protect itself from potential threats from its unfriendly neighbors. While it would be preferable for the Israelis
to be able to count on the United States, in both word and deed, the fact is right now they stand alone. Obama and his foreign policy team have undercut the Israelis in
Obama’s weakness
could — in other places — have implications far, far worse than anything that might ultimately occur in
Israel. The triangular plot of land that connects Pakistan, India and China is held together with much
more fragility and is built upon a truly foreboding foundation of religious hatreds, radicalism, resource
envy and nuclear weapons. If you can only worry about preventing one foreign policy disaster, worry
about this one. Here are a few unsettling facts to think about: First, Pakistan and India have fought three wars since the British de-colonized and left
the region in 1947. All three wars occurred before the two countries had nuclear weapons. Both countries now possess hundreds of nuclear
weapons, enough to wipe each other off the map many times over. Second, Pakistan is 97% Muslim. It is a
question of when — not if — Pakistan elects a radical Islamist in the mold of Ayatollah Khomeini as its
president. Make no mistake, it will happen, and when it does the world will have a far greater concern than Ali Khamenei or Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and a single nuclear device. Third, China sits at the northern border of both India and
Pakistan. China is strategically aligned with Pakistan. Most concerning, China covets India’s natural
resources. Over the years, it has slowly inched its way into the northern tier of India-controlled Kashmir Territory,
appropriating land and resources and drawing little notice from the outside world. In my book, Coup D’Etat, I consider
this tinderbox of colliding forces in Pakistan, India and China as a thriller writer. But thriller writers have the luxury of solving problems by imagining
solutions on the page. In my book, when Pakistan elects a radical Islamist who then starts a war with India and
introduces nuclear weapons to the theater, America steps in and removes the Pakistani leader through a
coup d’état. I wish it was that simple. The more complicated and difficult truth is that we, as Americans, must take sides. We must be willing to be
a multitude of ways. Despite this, I wouldn’t bet against the soldiers of Shin Bet, Shayetet 13 and the Israeli Defense Forces. But
unpopular in certain places. Most important, we
must be ready and willing to threaten our military might on behalf of our
allies. And our allies are Israel and India. There are many threats out there — Islamic radicalism, Chinese
technology espionage, global debt and half a dozen other things that smarter people than me are no doubt
worrying about. But the single greatest threat to America is none of these. The single greatest threat facing America and our
allies is a weak U.S. president. It doesn’t have to be this way. President Obama could — if he chose — develop a
backbone and lead . Alternatively, America could elect a new president. It has to be one or the other. The status quo is simply not an
option.
Uniqueness
2NC Uniqueness
Default negative --- our evidence assumes the likely endgame and shifting political
momentum
Drew 7/17/15 – regular contributor to The New York Review (Elizabeth, The Iran Deal Goes to Washington, NYR Daily,
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/jul/17/congress-iran-deal-goes-to-washington/)//JJ
The first thing to know about all the noise being made in Washington over the nuclear deal with Iran is that
there’s a lot of play-acting going on. A number of politicians, particularly Democrats, are striking positions to get them past this early period; several
significant Democratic Senators simply aren’t yet ready to say they’re for the deal, though many of them are
expected to be. The real question isn’t where they are now but where they’ll end up. Therefore some
statements shouldn’t be taken literally. When Ben Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
said recently that he had questions about the coming deal, some journalists and other observers interpreted this as a
sign of trouble; but his statement simply reflected political prudence. To be taken seriously on such a weighty issue, a
politician needs to be seen as having carefully considered his or her position.
This may be where the Republicans are making a mistake. Lindsey Graham was caught out by reporters on Tuesday when he condemned the deal and then, in response to
their challenges, admitted that he hadn’t read the more than one-hundred-page agreement, nor did he know what was in it. House Speaker John Boehner also immediately
denounced the deal. Boehner’s tack, which others also employ, is to charge that the agreement isn’t as tough on Iran as what the president said he would seek. Wisconsin
Governor Scott Walker, who officially entered the 2016 presidential race the day before the Iran deal was formally announced, said that it should be abrogated by the next
president on day one—which would free Iran to pursue a nuclear weapon and create an unholy mess with our allies.
The Republicans’ rush to judgment
undermines their position.
In fact, knowledgeable analysts say that the
final deal fulfills what was outlined in the interim framework agreement
announced in April. Jim Walsh, a security and nuclear policy expert at MIT, describes it as “the most intrusive
multilateral agreement in nuclear history.” According to Walsh, the deal’s inclusion of a “snapback” provision—the
rapid restoration of sanctions if Iran is caught cheating—is “unprecedented.”
Yet I can find no
one on the side of the deal who thinks that it will have majority support in either chamber, which means that
the president will veto what Congress sends him. Therefore, beneath all the rhetoric, the realists here are looking for one thing: whether
there will be enough votes in the Senate or the House—one-third plus one of the members—to uphold that veto. (A veto can be
overridden by a two-thirds vote in both chambers.) It’s believed that there’s a sufficient number of House Democrats who will vote to
sustain it. But it’s assumed that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Boehner will arrange for the Senate to vote
before the House does and the deal’s supporters fear that if there’s a strong vote against it in the Senate the votes
in the House to sustain a veto might crumble. A strategist for the pro-deal side told me, “A number of those House votes on
our side are squishy.” So what happens in the Senate is the crucial question.
it cannot be assumed that Democrats will feel
obliged to vote in favor of what could be the president’s crowning achievement: in 2014 many of them showed themselves
With a few possible exceptions, the Senate Republicans are being written off as against the deal. But
capable of keeping their distance from him in an effort to save their own skin. If they think the deal with Iran will make them vulnerable in the next election, they might well
vote against it. Their ultimate decision could be no more worldly than that.
I asked a couple of well-informed
vote-counters if they thought the president had the thirty-four Senate votes needed to
block an override. They both agreed that they’re not yet there, but they expect to be by September. Supporters would of
course like to end up with more than thirty-four votes so that it doesn’t look like they exhaustedly dragged a beat-up deal across the finish line.
The two figures to whom the most attention is being paid are Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Chuck Schumer, odds
on the next Democratic leader in the Senate. Schumer has a history of taking a pro-Israeli government point of view, and his going against the administration on the Iran
deal would probably present it with an uphill climb. Corker is in a difficult position: a Tennessean with finely chiseled features, he seemingly wants to play the part of the
responsible statesman, following in the footsteps of, say, Richard Lugar, the former Republican Senator from Indiana who was an influential leader on foreign policy. But
Corker is consigned to working within a party that is now far more conservative and partisan—and unforgiving of apostates—than it was in Lugar’s day. Some observers
believe that Corker might not come out flatly for or against the deal, but might propose some legislative wording or maneuver that would make him not seem a knee-jerk
partisan. It’s
quite possible that both Corker and Schumer will leave their ultimate positions on the deal
unknown for some time.
When great issues are before Congress and the country, public opinion can take big swings. This is why August could be a critical month for the Iran agreement. Because
the negotiators didn’t finish before July 9, and because of its month-long recess, Congress has sixty days (instead of thirty) to decide on the deal. With Congress gone and
the President usually on vacation for some of the time, August is supposedly a slow news period, which leaves ample room for coverage of local uprisings against members,
which can then become contagious. The Clintons’ health care plan took a battering in August of 1994; the Tea Party revolt against President Obama’s health care plan
boiled up in August of 2010, and while the plan survived, so did the Tea Party as a force.
To the extent that one can tell at this point, the
political winds have been blowing, if softly and unseen, in the direction of
those who support an agreement. The mood and tone on Capitol Hill have changed considerably from last
winter, when backers of the nuclear negotiations had to mount a major fight to keep Congress from passing a new sanctions bill that would have sunk them. Then the
talks went on so long—twenty-two months—that we got used to the spectacle of senior US officials sitting across the table from high-level Iranians. Or the two countries’
respective foreign ministers taking a walk together. This
was a long way from George W. Bush’s putting Iran in the “axis of
evil.” But the deal’s supporters are aware that opinion could swing back in the other direction.
As the negotiations went on, one of the opponents’ tactics was to say that Obama (or Kerry) “wants
a deal too badly.” This got to the point where some
talk show hosts and Republican pols described Obama as “desperate” for a deal. The Republicans are very good at the art of repetition: taking a talking
point and saying it over and over and over again until it starts to pass as a fact. They’ve done so well with this that this spring my dentist told me in the strictest secrecy, off
the record and all that, that his friend, a neocon Congressman, told him that Kerry wanted a deal too badly.
Obama only has a thin margin for error --- he is spending PC and avoiding any new
surprises to ensure passage
French 7/16/15 – Congress reporter for POLITICO (Lauren, Nancy Pelosi voices ‘strong support’ for Iran deal, Politico,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/iran-deal-nancy-pelosi-supports-120224.html)//JJ
House Democratic
leaders are increasingly confident they have the votes necessary to sustain any presidential
veto of GOP-backed legislation that would effectively scuttle the Iran nuclear deal.
Despite some lingering skepticism in parts of the caucus, leadership sources pointed to the 152 Democrats
already on the record supporting the earlier framework of the nuclear deal as evidence that House Democrats will likely do
their part to keep President Barack Obama’s landmark nonproliferation deal alive.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who wields
significant influence in the caucus, on Thursday announced her “strong
support” for the deal.
“A nuclear Iran is unacceptable to the United States, to the world and, in particular, to Israel,” the California Democrat said. The deal is “intensifying our vigilance over
every aspect of the entire Iranian nuclear program.”
Keeping House Democrats on board could end up being the easiest sales pitch White House has to make
when it comes to Iran.
Congressional Republicans are denouncing the deal — which would stop the growth of Iran’s nuclear facilities while lifting a series of sanctions — as inadequate.
Republicans are planning to move ahead with disapproval legislation after a 60-day review period — a measure Obama has already pledged to veto as it would essentially
stop the accord from going forward.
That means Obama
Senate, the
would need Democrats in both chambers to sustain his veto — or the agreement dies. In the
White House can lose no more than 12 Democrats from the 46-member caucus.
The numbers in the House are harder to pin down exactly. Despite the support of high-profile members
like Pelosi and Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky, the margins would be close — mostly because Democrats
hold so few seats.
So the White House is doing its best to avoid any surprises this fall, when the
disapproval resolution is expected to start moving. Obama has already started
aggressively lobbying members — a process that started before the nuclear agreement was even publicly announced.
Obama and Pelosi spoke by phone Monday night and other top Obama administration officials called Democrats who have been
active on Iran shortly after the final accord was made public.
The early effort paid off with Pelosi. The California Democrat announced Thursday her “strong support” for the deal — and said she would personally lobby her fellow
House Democrats to back it. She’ll join an established pro-deal whip operation in the House that’s run by Schakowsky and Reps. Lloyd Doggett of Texas and David Price
of North Carolina.
Schakowsky was among a group of nearly 15 Democratic lawmakers invited to the White House on Thursday for an early morning briefing on the deal. The Jewish
lawmakers questioned administration officials about how much money Iran would have access to after sanctions were lifted, the timetables for inspections of Iranian nuclear
sites and the details of an arms embargo.
“People felt that the
administration was more than willing to spend whatever time is necessary to provide the
assurances to the members and they understand that the Jewish members have a particular concern, which is a concern about the security of Israel,”
Schakowsky said. “There were reassurances made there too. I think in general the feeling was that not only was that session satisfactory but there is a willingness
of the administration to work with us to answer the concerns.”
Obama likely has the votes to sustain a veto – the next two months are uncertain and
PC is critical
Bolton 7/19 – The Hill (Alexander, “Dems worry Iran deal may wilt in dog days of August”, The Hill, 7/19/15, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/248420dems-worry-iran-deal-may-wilt-in-dog-days-of-august, accessed 7/19/15)//RZ
Democratic lawmakers are holding back their support for President Obama’s controversial nuclear deal with Iran,
knowing the political dynamic surrounding it could change dramatically in the coming months.
Political firestorms tend to erupt during the long, hot days of August, when lawmakers meet face-to-face with constituents in town-hall meetings
that can quickly grow contentious.
Pro-Israel and other political advocacy groups know this and plan to spend tens of millions of dollars over the next
two months to build a firestorm of opposition to the deal they believe preserves Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon.
A few Democrats, such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), have already said they’ll vote for the deal when it comes to the Senate floor in
September, but others are reserving judgment, knowing the politics of the issue could change dramatically.
“I want to first sit in my little chair in my house, take the agreement, the codicils, the annexes and read them and ponder them and study them. Then I intend to start talking
to people and experts, but the first step is to do that,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a pivotal swing vote.
Twenty-eight Senate Democrats have not made clear their decisions, according to a whip list complied by The Hill. Five
Democrats have announced their support and 13 are leaning yes.
A senior Democratic aide said memories of recent August recesses turned bad still sting.
“There was ObamaCare in 2009 and the border surge in 2014,” the aide said.
Democrats were stunned by the intensity of anger and opposition in response to healthcare negotiations leading up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act when they
returned to their home states in August of 2009.
The issue of border security exploded into a political crisis last August when a surge of unaccompanied minors from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador dominated the
news for weeks.
“I have two fears right now: the sixty-day window, which gives opponents plenty of time to crank up their opposition, and the issue of the lifting of the Iran arms
embargo,” said Jim Manley, a strategist and former senior aide to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
“As someone who had a front-row seat in 2009 when I saw how quickly the Tea Party activists managed to turn debate on ObamaCare on its head, I’m very concerned
about something similar happening this time around,” he added.
Pro-Israel groups led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) plan to spend millions of dollars
on a nationwide lobbying campaign.
Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, a new group backed by AIPAC, launched a multi-million-dollar nationwide campaign Friday to oppose the nuclear deal.
“We think Democrats should be concerned because the deal increases the chances of war, will spur a nuclear arms race and rewards an Iran with a horrific human rights
record,” spokesman Patrick Dorton told The Hill.
Opponents will argue the deal does not achieve “anytime, anywhere” inspection, fails to specify to what extent Iran must disclose past work on nuclear weapons and allows
it to continue developing intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The battle for influence will focus on a group of about 15 Senate Democrats whom Republicans need to
reach the 67-vote threshold to override a veto of a disapproval resolution.
“How’s the verification going to work? How can we be assured that Iran sticks to what they’ve agreed to? How are the sanctions going to snap back into place if they
don’t?” asked Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.).
Senior congressional aides say there are enough votes this month to sustain President Obama’s expected
veto of a resolution overturning the deal, but warn the environment could change over the next two months.
“The fact that there’s a vote in September makes me worry. If the votes were held now, we’d be fine,” a Senate Democratic leadership aide told The Hill on Tuesday.
Democrats, however, say they are more prepared for the lobbying assault than they were six years ago when
the vitriolic backlash against ObamaCare caught them flatfooted.
“I think that the opponents
are motivated and well-funded and have a lot of passionate supporters to do grassroots type of
lobbying. I think supporters of the deal are expecting that and prepared unlike ObamaCare summer, which took a lot
of people by surprise,” said a Senate Democratic aide.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold its first hearing on the accord July 23, when Secretary of State John
Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew are scheduled to testify.
Sen. Ben Cardin (Md.), the senior Democrat on the panel, expects it to hold at least three public hearings over the next three weeks before the recess.
The administration has deployed an intense lobbying campaign led by Vice President Joe Biden in hopes of
locking down votes before lawmakers leave town.
“I’m
sure the administration is going to be applying pressure for people to support it early to build
political momentum,” said another Senate Democratic aide.
Deal will pass—rare era of bipartisanship in foreign policy ensures cooperation over
passage
Nossel 7/16, executive director of the Pen American Center and a former deputy assistant secretary of state for international organizations at the U.S. State
Department, (Suzanne, 7/16/15, The Do-Something Congress, The Hill, https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/16/the-do-something-congress-iran-deal-bipartisanshipobama-republicans/)//kap
the
Republican attacks landed fast and heavy. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told Bloomberg that the deal is “akin to declaring war
on Sunni Arabs and Israel.” Republican presidential hopeful Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin said it “will be remembered as one of
America’s worst diplomatic failures.” Jeb Bush lambasted it as “dangerous, deeply flawed, and short-sighted.” And Sen.
Tom Cotton, (R-Ark.) attacked it on MSNBC’s Morning Joe as “a terrible, dangerous mistake” and promised, “The American people are
going to repudiate this deal, and I believe Congress will kill the deal.”
In the hours after President Barack Obama announced that the long-running negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program had finally reached an agreement,
The hard-fought agreement, which Congress now has 60 days to review and vote on, seems poised to be a death battle in the longrunning war between President Obama and his Republican nemeses over the direction of U.S. foreign policy.
one of the most potent challenges to
Obama’s foreign policy has originated right in Washington. Pervasive, entrenched, and ideologically grounded partisan
polarization has stymied the projection of U.S. power around the world, delayed and thwarted critical decisions,
weakened international alliances, and undercut the deterrent effect of U.S. military might. The abandonment
of the ideal of a bipartisan foreign policy, the defeat and retirement of centrist Republicans, and the escalation of gamesmanship in the 24-hour online news
cycle have diminished the will to compromise and led many policymakers to prioritize political point-scoring at
the expense of American global leadership.
Despite a sharp-elbowed China, a flailing counterterrorism strategy, and a Middle East in meltdown,
Only this time, despite the bombast and chagrin, there’s reason to believe that things may play out differently, and that after the
early rhetoric clears, Republicans and Democrats will join forces to pass the deal by a comfortable margin.
The last few months have witnessed a tentative, barely perceptible pattern of uncharacteristic compromise across the
aisle on a series of high-profile issues of international concern. The granting of Trade Promotion Authority in June, the swift approval
of this year’s $612 billion National Defense Authorization Act by a veto-proof majority in the U.S. Senate, passage of the USA Freedom
Act mandating reforms to dragnet surveillance, and legislation governing congressional review of a potential nuclear deal with Iran
all represent bipartisan breakthroughs on high-profile, contentious issues where common ground was previously
elusive. The biggest test of whether the emerging bipartisanship can hold will come in the next 60
days as Congress reviews the president’s nuclear agreement, the most controversial foreign-policy initiative of his presidency.
Rather than reflecting a philosophical shift on either side, the surprising emergence of solid bipartisan
majorities on a series of contested issues reflect a calculation that is quietly taking hold and may persist
through the presidential election on Nov. 8, 2016. Neither Democrats nor Republicans know who will control the White House and Congress 18 months
hence. After six and a half years of obstructing the president, Republicans now need to prepare for the possibility that they may be in the Oval Office come January 2017.
Overlaying their own personal viewpoints and constituency concerns, Democratic lawmakers face a three-fold imperative: vindicating President Obama’s tenure as a
success, enabling Hillary Clinton (or any other Democratic heir), and imposing checks on a potential President Bush, Walker, or Trump.
While some Democrats may trust President Obama not to misuse terabyte upon terabyte of Americans’ metadata, for example, the prospect of putting that information in
the hands of a Walker administration feels different. While the period ahead will be one of pitched partisanship on hot and crowded campaign buses, it may also open a
window for bipartisan cooperation in Washington motivated by policymakers seeking to safeguard their interests amid an uncertain election outcome.
Few disagree with the idea of a bipartisan foreign policy in theory. The godfather of bipartisanship in international affairs, former Sen.
Arthur Vandenberg (R-Mich.), famously intoned that “we must stop politics at the water’s edge,” so that “America speaks with maximum authority against those who would
divide and conquer us and the free world.” While continuing to champion robust debate, Vandenberg sidelined his own staunch isolationism to join President Harry
Truman in thwarting the rise of a remilitarized Germany and Japan, enacting the Marshall Plan, and creating NATO — some of the most enduring foreign-policy
accomplishments of the 20th century.
Vandenberg’s vision proved enduring but also elusive. While commentators often harken back to bipartisan unity in facing down the Soviet Union under Reagan, rolling
back Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War, stopping the Bosnian genocide, or waging war in Afghanistan after 9/11, the historical record reveals that considerable divisions
and a strong doses of partisan invective accompanied all those efforts. Moreover, the flow of such examples has slowed to a trickle in recent years, and the consequences of
the drought have been visible and damaging. The successive debt ceiling, government shutdown, and sequestration battles during the Obama administration distracted the
White House from foreign-policy matters, spooked global markets, and bred worldwide doubts about whether the United States was capable of governing itself, never mind
leading the rest of the world.
More recent examples of partisanship undermining policy interests are many. The recriminations over the attack of the American
diplomatic compound in Benghazi in 2012 have demonstrated that, rather than inspiring fortitude, terrorist attacks can now sow domestic divisions. Obama’s failed attempt
to muster congressional support to defend his red line and punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons with airstrikes in the summer of 2013 marked
a low for U.S. credibility in the Middle East. Two years later, Republican commentators tend to blame Obama’s failure to go through with the strikes for almost every bad
thing that has befallen the region since. Five years of congressional dithering over reforms negotiated by the Obama administration for the International Monetary Fund led
China to circumvent the fund, uniting regional neighbors and key American allies in a new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank that excludes the United States.
The Senate’s own historians have judged the congressional leadership’s direct dealings with foreign leaders and public repudiation of the president’s foreign policy
unprecedented.The Senate’s own historians have judged the congressional leadership’s direct dealings with foreign leaders and public repudiation of the president’s foreign
policy unprecedented. House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to appear before a joint session of Congress in March to
assail a potential nuclear deal with Iran put the world on notice that the White House might not be able to deliver American support for a deal. Days later, 47 Republican
senators signed an open letter to Iranian leaders proclaiming that they were unlikely to honor any agreement signed by Obama after the end of his term.
And then, tenuously, the tenor shifted. Not knowing who will win the next election, Washington is now
operating under a political equivalent of the “veil of ignorance” that philosopher John Rawls first described in his 1971 book, A
Theory of Justice. Rawls posited that the fairest way to set up rules in a society would be through debate in which participants would not know where they would be situated
in a future system governed by the rules they were establishing. For example, if a society was to set precepts governing slavery, those deliberating the terms would do so
without knowing whether they would end up slaves or masters in the order they created. Rawls’s notion was that regulations established from behind such a veil of
ignorance about rule-makers’ own individual future roles and status would be fairer than those set by stakeholders aiming to preserve positions and prerogatives that they
know they will enjoy by virtue of their station.
The uncertain outcome of the 2016 election has cast a natural veil of ignorance over the Washington
policymaking process: Lawmakers and executive branch officials don’t know who will be implementing (or
trying to reverse) the decisions they make. As Rawls’s predicted, that uncertainty incentivizes a more balanced and, dare I say, enlightened
approach to decision-making as policymakers strive to protect their interests under a range of scenarios.
Obama Pushing
Obama is all in to get the Iran deal passed
Carney 7/18, staff writer at The Hill, (Jordain, 7/18/15, Obama's five big arguments on Iran deal, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/248387-obamas-five-big-arguments-on-iran-deal)//kap
The Iran nuclear agreement is complete, but the debate over the deal has just begun.
The White House has launched an aggressive lobbying campaign to sell the accord at home and
abroad, where it faces deep skepticism from lawmakers and traditional U.S. allies.
Obama is looking to build enough support in Congress to sustain a veto of any resolution disapproving
of the deal.
And he
is seeking to reassure Israel and Arab states, who worry the agreement will embolden their top regional rival, Iran.
Obama’s in a full-court press now – solves veto-override
AFP 7/16/15 – Agence France-Presse (White House courts Congress on Iran, Democrats skeptical, Global Post,
http://www.globalpost.com/article/6617438/2015/07/16/white-house-courts-congress-iran-democrats-skeptical)//JJ
The White
House dispatched Vice President Joe Biden to Congress for a second straight day Thursday in a bid to soothe
skepticism about the historic nuclear deal with Iran, but Democrats remained wary.
The veteran former senator sought to assuage concerns expressed by some of his onetime colleagues
about the international inspections regime and other controversial elements of the accord.
with detailed explanations
"He made a good case. He did not launch into a major defense (of the deal), instead he answered questions," Senator Tim Kaine said after Biden met with
Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"He allayed
some concerns," Kaine added, while declining to say whether he was committed to supporting the pact.
A day earlier Biden met
with Democrats in the House of Representatives on a similar mission.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner reiterated his concerns about the agreement Thursday.
"Given everything I've seen so far, this is a bad deal. It paves the way for a nuclear Iran," he said.
"We're going to fight a bad deal that's wrong for our national security and wrong for the country."
The accord sees Iran's nuclear program curtailed in exchange for an easing of crippling economic sanctions.
Congress has 60 days to review the agreement, and can vote to approve or reject it.
Under legislation passed in May, President Barack Obama
the deal during that time.
is barred from lifting congressional sanctions on Iran during the review period, unless Congress approves
Many Republicans, including several running for president in 2016, have already expressed opposition to it.
Democrats, while admittedly unsure, are urging
judgment.
colleagues to study the agreement and consider experts' testimony before passing
Should Congress pass a resolution of disapproval, Obama would veto it.
Two-thirds of lawmakers would be needed to override a presidential veto, and top
Thursday that her
"I'm very
House Democrat Nancy Pelosi expressed confidence
caucus would prevent such an override.
optimistic about our ability to support the president," she said.
Another phase in Obama's full-court press begins next week, when Secretary of State John Kerry, who was instrumental in striking
this week's agreement with America's historic foe, testifies in the first of several congressional hearings on Iran.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew will also testify.
AT: UN Move Blocks Passage
No impact to UN move – it’s consistent
Everett and French 7/16/15 – congressional reporters for POLITICO (Burgess and Lauren, Congress balks at Obama's UN move on Iran deal,
POLITICO, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/congress-responds-to-obamas-un-move-on-iran-deal-120257.html?hp=b1_l2)//JJ
Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a conservative aspirant for the GOP presidential nomination, announced his intent to delay all State Department nominees and
legislation to authorize the agency until Obama tells Cruz that he will block a UN vote.
“It seems your administration intended all along to circumvent this domestic review,” Cruz wrote in a letter to the president. “That Samantha Power has already introduced
a draft resolution to the Security Council portrays an offensive level of disrespect for the American people and their elected representatives in Congress.”
It’s unclear how widespread the ramifications of the administration’s submission to the U.N. will be. But it doesn’t appear to be doing the administration any favors with
Cardin, a key swing Democrat that the administration is likely to need on its side, or Corker, the undecided chairman who will lead an aggressive hearing schedule over the
next two weeks.
But the popular congressional review law crafted by Cardin and Corker includes no provisions that punish the administration for submitting the deal to the United Nations
before Congress votes, leading Republicans like House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California to accuse Obama of violating the “spirit” of the law rather than the
law itself.
Other lawmakers shrugged off the dispute. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) called it “immaterial” to
lawmakers’ role in deciding whether or not to lift congressional sanctions, and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said it was
wholly consistent with the long-debated nuclear review law that states the UN and administration can lift
“sanctions that Congress didn’t have anything to do with.”
“You could certainly argue with the tactic, but it
was very plain,” Kaine said.
AT: Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link/ AT: Pelosi = Passage
***note when prepping file --- a version of this card is also in the 2nc uniqueness
block
Obama’s margin for error is thin—only aggressive lobbying will ensure passage
French 7/16/15 – Congress reporter for POLITICO (Lauren, Nancy Pelosi voices ‘strong support’ for Iran deal, Politico,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/iran-deal-nancy-pelosi-supports-120224.html)//JJ
House Democratic
leaders are increasingly confident they have the votes necessary to sustain any presidential
veto of GOP-backed legislation that would effectively scuttle the Iran nuclear deal.
Despite some lingering skepticism in parts of the caucus, leadership sources pointed to the 152 Democrats
already on the record supporting the earlier framework of the nuclear deal as evidence that House Democrats will likely do
their part to keep President Barack Obama’s landmark nonproliferation deal alive.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who wields
significant influence in the caucus, on Thursday announced her “strong
support” for the deal.
“A nuclear Iran is unacceptable to the United States, to the world and, in particular, to Israel,” the California Democrat said. The deal is “intensifying our vigilance over
every aspect of the entire Iranian nuclear program.”
Keeping House Democrats on board could end up being the easiest sales pitch White House has to make
when it comes to Iran.
Congressional Republicans are denouncing the deal — which would stop the growth of Iran’s nuclear facilities while lifting a series of sanctions — as inadequate.
Republicans are planning to move ahead with disapproval legislation after a 60-day review period — a measure Obama has already pledged to veto as it would essentially
stop the accord from going forward.
That means Obama
Senate, the
would need Democrats in both chambers to sustain his veto — or the agreement dies. In the
White House can lose no more than 12 Democrats from the 46-member caucus.
The numbers in the House are harder to pin down exactly. Despite the support of high-profile members
like Pelosi and Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky, the margins would be close — mostly because Democrats
hold so few seats.
So the
White House is doing its best to avoid any surprises this fall, when the disapproval resolution is expected to start moving.
Obama has already started aggressively lobbying members — a process that started before the nuclear agreement was even publicly
announced.
Obama and Pelosi spoke by phone Monday night and other top Obama administration officials called Democrats who have been
active on Iran shortly after the final accord was made public.
The early effort paid off with Pelosi. The California Democrat announced Thursday her “strong support” for the deal — and said she would personally lobby her fellow
House Democrats to back it. She’ll join an established pro-deal whip operation in the House that’s run by Schakowsky and Reps. Lloyd Doggett of Texas and David Price
of North Carolina.
Schakowsky was among a group of nearly 15 Democratic lawmakers invited to the White House on Thursday for an early morning briefing on the deal. The Jewish
lawmakers questioned administration officials about how much money Iran would have access to after sanctions were lifted, the timetables for inspections of Iranian nuclear
sites and the details of an arms embargo.
“People felt that the
administration was more than willing to spend whatever time is necessary to provide the
assurances to the members and they understand that the Jewish members have a particular concern, which is a concern about the security of Israel,”
Schakowsky said. “There were reassurances made there too. I think in general the feeling was that not only was that session satisfactory but there is a willingness
of the administration to work with us to answer the concerns.”
AT: Thumpers --- Top Level
Nothing thumps—our 1NC Lillis evidence indicates that the Iran deal is Obama’s
top priority and that he is pushing it over all other issues.
Iran deal is top of the docket
Byrnes and Kamisar 7/15, staff writer at The Hill, (Jesse and Ben, 7/15/15, Obama defends Iran deal, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/248028-obama-defends-iran-deal)//kap
President Obama on Wednesday sought
to defend his administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, suggesting it was a historic
opportunity that the United States should not pass up.
“It prevents the most serious threat — Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, which would only make the other problems Iran may cause even worse,” Obama said during a
press conference.
“If we don't choose wisely, I believe future generations will judge us harshly for letting this moment slip away,” Obama said in brief opening remarks.
Obama outlined a litany of arguments for adopting the deal, saying it cuts off Iran's pathways to a bomb, provides “unprecedented,
around-the-clock” international inspections to known sites and the entire supply chain and deters the threat of a nuclear Iran.
Negotiators working for the past two years reached an accord early Tuesday providing sanctions relief for Iran in exchange for a rollback of its nuclear program.
The deal expands the breakout time for Iran to obtain enough material to build a nuclear weapon to one year by reducing the amount of centrifuges and uranium Iran can
have, limiting the reactors it can build and adding further restrictions and inspection protocols.
But critics have blasted many parts of the accord, including the intensity of inspections, saying that Iran could have up to 24 days before inspectors are allowed access to
undeclared sites.
Obama hit those concerns, pushing back on the idea that the 24-day window is insufficient. He noted that the international community could vote to overrule Iran if it tries
to restrict access to undeclared sites, even without the support of Russia or China, countries that have been sympathetic to Iran in the past.
“The nature of nuclear programs and facilities is such — this is something you do not hide in a closet. This is not something that you put on a dolly and wheel off
somewhere,” Obama said.
“We don't need Russia or China in order for us to get that override,” he said. “If they continue to object, we're in a position to snap back sanctions.”
The deal with Iran, a top priority for Obama in his second term, is being met with deep skepticism from
members of Congress and others in the Middle East, particularly Israel.
A significant number of lawmakers have argued that anything short of a complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program is a failure and question terms that lift arms and
ballistic missile embargoes after five and eight years, respectively. That would allow Iran to possess those weapons, despite its stated hostility to Israel, as well as its support
for terrorism and other destabilizing forces in the region.
Obama countered that international law has a “number of mechanisms” to prevent illicit arms shipments by Iran
and that it will be easier to check Iran's “nefarious” actions if it doesn't have a bomb.
He said he told negotiators they should
press for a longer extension of the arms embargo and of ballistic missile
prohibitions given concerns Iran can’t be trusted. “And we got that,” he said.
Congress will have 60 days to review the deal and an additional 12 days to vote on it as part of a law passed earlier this year as a compromise
between Congress and the White House.
If Congress can overcome the president’s veto, he won’t be able to lift all of the country’s sanctions against Iran, which could jeopardize the deal. But if Congress fails to
scuttle the deal, either through a “no” vote or a decision not to hold a vote, Obama
is authorized to move forward and abide by the terms.
AT: Cuba Thumper
Restoration of embassies and relations ensures that Cuba is not a loss anyway
BBC 7/20, the public-service broadcaster of the United Kingdom, headquartered at Broadcasting House in London, (7/20/15, Cuban flag flies in Washington as
relations restored, BBC, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-33590417)//kap
Just after midnight local time, the
diplomatic missions of each country became full embassies.
The Cuban flag was raised on Monday at the newly opened embassy in Washington.
"Nothing
"We're
is more futile than trying to live in the past," said US Secretary of State John Kerry.
taking a historic and long overdue step in the right direction."
Despite the historic shift, both sides admit to lingering difficulties.
There were still "issues that we don't see eye to eye on", a US state department spokesman said.
A flag will not be raised at the American Embassy in Havana until Mr Kerry pays a visit there on 14 August.
Bruno Rodriguez, Cuba's minister of foreign affairs, called for a removal of the 53-year-old US trade embargo and for the US to return Guantanamo Bay to Cuba.
"I will welcome Mr Kerry in a few weeks and continue talks," Mr Rodriguez said.
Outside of the embassy, crowds of people cheered as the Cuban national anthem played and three Cuban soldiers stood at attention while the
flag was raised.
Protesters dotted the crowd, and one was removed from the area by police.
Mr Obama's efforts to engage Cuba were partly held back by the country's imprisonment of US Agency for
International Development contractor Alan Gross, who was jailed for espionage charges. Secret negotiations led to Mr Gross's release last
year.
Restrictions on Americans wanting to travel to Cuba remain in place, as does the wider US trade embargo banning most American companies from doing business in Cuba.
Cuba says the embargo - which it calls a blockade - is hugely damaging to its economy.
President Raul Castro has urged President Barack Obama to lift it, calling it the main stumbling block towards normalisations. But the US Congress would have to vote on
the issue.
The two presidents announced the move towards diplomatic ties in December last year.
Conrad Tribble, deputy chief of mission for the US in Havana, tweeted: "Just made the first phone call to State Dept Ops Center from United States Embassy Havana ever.
It didn't exist in Jan 1961."
He then shared the US Cuban embassy's new Twitter account, which already has more than 5,000 followers.
Link/ Internal Link
PC key
Political capital solves a veto-override
Lee et al 7/15/15 – The Wall Street Journal (Carol, Colleen Nelson, Kristina Peterson, Obama Girds for Battle With Congress on Iran Deal, Wall Street
Journal, http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-girds-for-battle-with-congress-on-iran-deal-1437005023)//JJ
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama
delivered an unusually animated and sometimes combative defense of the
Iran nuclear deal the day after it was reached, girding for a complicated political challenge likely to force him to use his veto to save his
crowning foreign-policy achievement.
Lawmakers have 60 days to review the agreement and an option to vote on approving or disapproving it, with opposition to the deal widespread among Republicans who
control both houses of Congress. If they vote it down, the
deal’s survival will hinge on Mr. Obama’s ability to secure
enough support from his own Democratic Party to prevent a two-thirds majority in each chamber from
overriding his promised veto.
Opponents of the deal ramped up their criticism and organization against it on Wednesday.
Mr. Obama, in a 67-minute news conference at the White House, accused
opponents—from Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu to Republican lawmakers—
of pushing political talking points to simply discredit the accord as a bad deal.
“For all the objections of Prime Minister Netanyahu or, for that matter, some of the Republican leadership that’s already spoken, none of them have presented to me or the
American people a better alternative,” Mr. Obama said.
“Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it’s resolved through force, through war,” he added. “Those are the
options.”
The president’s aggressive defense of the deal drew quick pushback from Republicans in Congress, where the criticism has largely been twofold:
that the agreement won’t stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and that it doesn’t address broader concerns about Tehran’s behavior in the region. Rep. Lee Zeldin
(R., N.Y.) disputed the president’s assertion that this is a choice between the accord or war.
“Here’s an alternative other than war: A better deal,” Mr. Zeldin said. “For the security of America and the stability of the Middle East, we must pursue a better direction
immediately.”
Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican and 2016 presidential candidate, started an online petition opposing the deal, and the powerful pro-Israel lobby Aipac is calling on
lawmakers to vote against it. At the same time, J Street, a liberal pro-Israel group, said Wednesday it will launch a multimillion-dollar effort, including ads in print and
broadcast media, to lobby lawmakers to support the deal.
The agreement reached Tuesday in Vienna puts strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program for the next decade that are designed to keep Tehran from being at least 12 months
away from amassing enough nuclear fuel for a bomb. In exchange, the U.S., the European Union and the United Nations will lift economic sanctions on Iran.
Mr. Obama said he is “not betting on the Republican Party rallying around this agreement,” and Vice President Joe Biden
met with Democrats on
Capitol Hill. Mr. Biden told Democratic lawmakers he was initially skeptical of the deal but is now convinced the
agreement, while not perfect, is worth supporting, according to participants.
But even some Democrats expressed
embargoes on arms and ballistic missile sales to Iran.
concerns about the deal, particularly on the inspections provisions and the decision to lift United Nations
“For most members, including myself, it comes down to verification,” said Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, chairman of the New Democrat Coalition, a group of centrist
House Democrats. “It comes down to access to the sites, making sure they’re not impeded in any way, that we’ve got unlimited access to where we need to go to make sure
Iran is living up to their agreement.”
The White
House’s effort to preserve the deal depends on cohesion among Democrats in the House and
persuading wavering Democratic senators to stick with the president. That is because it became clear in the hours after the
agreement’s unveiling that few, if any, Republicans were likely to support it.
For Mr. Obama, the next
best option would be for Democrats to block the Republican-controlled Congress from
passing a resolution of disapproval. Such a resolution would likely prompt the agreement’s collapse if Congress could override a veto from Mr. Obama.
The debate will apply particular pressure to Democrats with large Jewish constituencies and those who were early
advocates of Congress getting the right to review and vote on any final deal. They include Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York who is expected to succeed
Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada as the Democratic leader, and others both on and off the Foreign Relations Committee.
Holding the line in the House will be a tough task, where legislation can pass on a majority vote. Mr. Obama
where Republicans hold 54 of the 100 seats and most bills need 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles.
has better prospects in the Senate,
Democrats said they were weighing the risks of spurning a deal painstakingly reached against embracing an agreement with an outcome that is ultimately unclear.
“The risk of voting for it is that if the Iranians cheat and somehow achieve a path to a bomb in spite of the agreement, then you look like you signed on to something that
wasn’t effective,” said Sen. Angus King (I., Maine). Conversely, the risk of rejecting the deal is that it scuttles the international agreement, unraveling the sanctions and
leaving Iran’s nuclear ambitions unchecked, he said. “There are risks in both directions.”
If both chambers were to pass a resolution disapproving the deal, Mr. Obama has said he would veto it.
Democratic lawmakers and aides said they thought there would be enough support to sustain the
president’s veto. It takes a two-thirds majority in each chamber to override a veto.
The president’s overarching message was for lawmakers to study and judge the deal on its merits.
“My hope is that everyone in Congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts—not on politics, not on posturing, not on the fact this is a deal I bring to Congress
as opposed to a Republican president,” Mr. Obama said.
Some lawmakers called on their colleagues to take a thorough look at the deal before rushing to judgment.
“To denounce an agreement or a deal before the ink is even dry strikes me as an abdication of our responsibility,” said Mr. King, a member of the Senate Armed Services
and Intelligence committees.
GOP irrelevant – Obama’s political capital is key to the necessary democrats on
board
Everett 7/15/15 – congressional reporter for Politico (Burgess, White House woos Republicans on Iran, Politico,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/white-house-woos-republicans-on-iran-120181.html)//JJ
There’s ample
reason for the White House to engage in the hearing schedule before lawmakers head home for
the August recess and begin hearing from constituents. Though President Barack Obama needs a group of centrist House and
Senate Democrats to side with him to prevent Congress from blocking the agreement, there is a small number
of Republicans who insist they’re undecided and open to persuasion by top administration officials.
Congressional Democrats and Obama
himself doubt that any Republicans will vote for the deal; their list of potential targets in
the Senate is probably limited to the seven Republicans who didn’t sign a controversial letter to Iranian leadership in March, criticizing a potential agreement. But
the political value of picking up even a single GOP supporter and making the support for the deal
“bipartisan” would be enormous for an administration used to partisan wins on health care — and partisan losses on matters like gun control
and the minimum wage.
Moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins said she has questions about lifting the arms embargo and the inspections regime, but she also indicated she could conceivably
come around. But first, she’s recommending the administration organize a briefing where senators can ask questions until they have no more.
“I have not reached a final decision because I think it’s premature to do so prior to the administration giving us a thorough briefing,” the senator from Maine said in an
interview. “I’ve told them it should be next week.”
Another undecided Republican is Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, who said a series
community’s ability to monitor Iran’s adherence to a deal. But he isn’t there yet.
of June briefings made him more confident of the international
“We’ve got to do due diligence. I’ve supported the negotiations, I’ve always said I would support a good deal and I’m trying to decide if it is,” Flake said. “It has to be
judged not against the ideal but against the alternative. I’m not rejecting it out of hand, but I approach it skeptically like Chairman Corker.”
Corker, Flake and Collins said that the hearing process will be paramount to their ultimate decision whether to support an Iran deal during a resolution of approval or
disapproval vote in September. But as Capitol Hill prepares to kick off a 60-day review period ending with a vote on either a resolution of approval or disapproval in
September, the
White House outreach effort is already underway.
On Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden met with the House Democratic Caucus for 70 minutes on the deal. Collins has spoken with two
Cabinet-level officials and a top official at the White House. Corker has privately discussed the agreement with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and planned
to speak with Moniz, who was heavily involved in negotiations, on Wednesday evening.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), a member of Corker’s committee who has been critical of the talks, received a call from U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha
Power shortly after the deal was announced.
Not all senators have received high-level attention. McCain, who called the agreement a “bad deal,” said he’d received a phone call from an official at the National Security
Council but hadn’t returned it.
“I think they had some undersecretary of something call my staff,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), struggling to conjure a name.
Meanwhile, six
Democratic senators were invited to the White House on Wednesday night to talk shop.
Though the
administration will make some effort woo Republicans, when it comes down to cobbling together
enough senators to protect the president from a veto-proof majority in opposition to the deal, it’s clear
where the White House’s money is.
“I’m sure they are spending all their time on what they would perceive to be moderate Democrats,” Corker said.
Obama’s political capital is key to Iran
Toronto Star 7/14/15 – renowned Canadian newspaper (Obama warns skeptical Congress not to stand in way of landmark Iran nuclear deal, The
Hamilton Spectator, Lexis)//JJ
WASHINGTON President Barack Obama
to move in a "new direction," while sharply
"No
heralded a historic nuclear agreement with Iran Tuesday as an opportunity for the longtime foes
warning the U.S. Congress that it would be irresponsible to block the accord.
deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East," Obama said in early morning remarks from the White House.
Obama, accompanied by Vice-President Joe Biden, spoke shortly after negotiators in Vienna announced the landmark deal aimed at curbing
Iran's nuclear program for more than a decade in exchange for billions of dollars in international sanctions relief. The president said the agreement, hammered out through
nearly two years of negotiations, would cut off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb and give the international community unprecedented access to the country's nuclear
facilities.
"This deal is not built on trust," Obama said. "It is built on verification."
For Obama, the accord marks the fulfilment of one of his top foreign policy goals and will be cast by the White House as a validation of
the president's focus on seeking resolutions through diplomacy. The president staked enormous political capital on the diplomatic pursuit
with Iran, deeply straining relations with Israel and sparking outrage from some congressional lawmakers.
It will likely be well after Obama has left the White House before it is known whether the deal succeeds in preventing Iran from building a bomb. Critics say Iran cannot be
trusted even with the lower levels of nuclear technology it will be allowed to retain under the terms of the agreement.
With the deal between the world powers now finalized, Congress has 60 days to assess the accord and decide whether to pursue legislation imposing new sanctions on Iran
or prevent Obama from suspending existing ones. Obama
called congressional leaders Monday night to alert them that a deal was at hand.
In his remarks Tuesday, the
president renewed his vow to veto any such legislation and urged lawmakers to consider
the repercussions of their actions. He painted a grim scenario in which the rest of the world struck its own nuclear deals with Iran, leaving the U.S.
isolated. And without the limitations and verifications included in the deal announced Tuesday, Obama said he or a future U.S. president would be more likely to face a
decision about using U.S. military action to prevent Iran from building a bomb.
In addition to his calls with congressional lawmakers, administration officials said Obama was likely to speak Tuesday with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, Saudi Arabia's King Salman, and European leaders.
Obama acknowledged Tuesday that the U.S. and Iran remain at odds over many issues, including Tehran's support for terrorism in the Middle East and its detention of
several American citizens. Still, he suggested a breakthrough on the nuclear issue could pave the way for a broader shift in relations between the U.S. and Iran.
"This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction," Obama said. "We should seize it."
Political capital is key – there’s an administration full-court press
Pecquet 7/19/15 – congressional reporter for Al Monitor (Julian, Kerry begins Iran deal sales push on Capitol Hill, Congressional Pulse, Al Monitor,
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/07/iran-nuclear-congress-kerry-zarif-putin-unsc.html)//JJ
US Secretary of State John Kerry
begins the sales push of his life this week as he tries to stop Congress from
wrecking what supporters hail as his crowning diplomatic achievement.
America's top diplomat is expected
to defend the Iran deal before both the House and Senate foreign affairs panels,
by Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Energy Secretary
Ernest Moniz, who has emerged as one of the most trusted administration sources on Capitol Hill, to provide the details.
although neither hearing has been publicly notified yet. Expect him to be flanked
Wendy Sherman, the undersecretary of state for political affairs who was a key player in the negotiations, will also be back on Capitol Hill selling the deal as soon as July 20,
according to the State Department's daily schedule. The
appearances are part of a full-court press by the administration that includes
personal lobbying on Capitol Hill by Vice President Joe Biden and an upcoming visit to Israel and Saudi Arabia by
Defense Secretary Ash Carter.
The administration has its work cut out as it tries to prevent the House and Senate from assembling a vetoproof majority over the next 60 days for legislation that would bar the White House from lifting statutory sanctions on Iran and potentially kill the
deal before it even goes into effect. Already, more than 170 House members have signed on to a resolution of disapproval from the co-chairman of the House Republican
Israel Caucus, Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., while the pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee is now officially urging lawmakers to reject the deal.
Impacts
Proliferation Impact
Deal’s key to the overall credibility of the entire nonprolif regime
Jeffrey M. Kaplow 15, Fellow with the University of California’s Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation and a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the
University of California, San Diego, 2015, “The Days After a Deal with Iran: Implications for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime,”
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE135/RAND_PE135.pdf
A nuclear agreement with Iran would represent a success for the nonproliferation regime in several ways. Most fundamentally, a deal offers at least the
prospect of a sustainable resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue. It is hard to overstate the importance of this
result for the regime as a whole. The Iran nuclear case has been the central preoccupation of U.S.
nonproliferation policy —and that of multilateral bodies such as the IAEA Board of Governors—for more than a decade. The
unyielding emphasis on Iran has been central to U.S. efforts to mobilize broad support , first for a finding of
noncompliance with the NPT, and later for robust international sanctions. But this strategy has sidelined discussion of
other important nonproliferation issues, including efforts to bolster nuclear security, promote universal
adherence to the Additional Protocol, and find a solution to the loophole of NPT withdrawal . And it has
complicated relations with some states, particularly those that have been active in the Non-Aligned Movement, as the United States exerted pressure
on them to support its votes on Iran in the IAEA and the United Nations.4 A deal with Iran could thus lead to a welcome turning of the
page in U.S. nonproliferation efforts. Of course, a deal does not make the Iran nuclear issue go away, but it may help to put it on a more stable and
sustainable footing. If Iran’s nuclear program is no longer seen as a crisis, it may allow the United States and like-minded states to act more
strategically on other important nonproliferation issues.¶ A nuclear agreement with Iran also would increase the
credibility of the regime as a whole. A deal sends an important message to the international community: The
nonproliferation regime may be messy, but it works . Some in the nonproliferation community have spent the last several years sounding the
alarm about the decline of the regime.5 These analysts argue that the continued pursuit of nuclear weapons by state parties to the NPT makes others more likely to violate
the regime in the future. Behind this argument is the idea that dwindling
confidence in the ability of the nonproliferation regime to
constrain state behavior threatens to undermine states’ collective commitment to foreswear nuclear
weapons —the fundamental agreement underlying the NPT. If a country sees others cheating and getting away with it, that country may feel less secure and thus more
likely to cheat as well. By limiting Iranian nuclear ambitions, then, a deal has the potential to eliminate —or at least make less
salient—a prominent example of a country that appears to be cheating and getting away with it.¶ This effect is amplified
because there are other states in the region that have felt threatened by an unconstrained Iranian nuclear effort.6 A deal will not completely reassure Iran’s neighbors, given
that their concerns over Iran run much deeper than its nuclear program and even the best deal cannot eliminate the possibility of future noncompliance, but it is possible
that a nuclear agreement will calm regional nerves somewhat. If Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and others in the region come to see a diminished threat
from Iran as a consequence of a deal, this potentially
affects the strength of the regime as a whole .7 The international
community may perceive Iran’s neighbors as less likely to pursue their own nuclear weapons programs or
adopt nuclear hedging strategies, which makes other countries less likely to consider weapons themselves, and so
on.8 The ripple effects of this signal extend well beyond Iran’s neighbors, to reach potential proliferants globally .
Credible regime prevents global nuclear escalation involving every major power
The Economist 3-7, “The new nuclear age,” 2015, http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21645729-quarter-century-after-end-cold-war-world-facesgrowing-threat-nuclear
A quarter of a century after the end of the cold war, the
world faces a growing threat of nuclear conflict ¶ WITHIN the next few weeks, after
years of stalling and evasion, Iran may at last agree to curb its nuclear programme. In exchange for relief from sanctions it will accept, in principle,
that it should allow intrusive inspections and limit how much uranium will cascade through its centrifuges. After 2025 Iran will gradually be allowed to expand its efforts. It
insists these are peaceful, but the world is convinced they are designed to produce a nuclear weapon. ¶ In a barnstorming speech to America’s Congress on March 3rd,
Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, fulminated against the prospect of such a deal (see article). Because it is temporary and leaves much of the Iranian programme
intact, he said, it merely “paves Iran’s path to the bomb”. Determined and malevolent, a nuclear Iran would put the world under the shadow of nuclear war. ¶ Mr
Netanyahu is wrong about the deal. It is the best on offer and much better than no deal at all, which would
lead to stalemate, cheating and, eventually, the dash to the very bomb he fears. But he is right to worry about nuclear
war—and not just because of Iran . Twenty-five years after the Soviet collapse, the world is entering a new nuclear age.
Nuclear strategy has become a cockpit of rogue regimes and regional foes jostling with the five original
nuclear-weapons powers (America, Britain, France, China and Russia), whose own dealings are infected by suspicion and rivalry.¶ Thanks in part to Mr
Netanyahu’s efforts, Iran commands worldwide attention. Unfortunately, the rest of the nuclear-weapons agenda is bedevilled by complacency and neglect.¶ The fallout
from Prague¶ After the end of the cold war the world clutched at the idea that nuclear annihilation was off the table. When Barack Obama, speaking in Prague in 2009,
backed the aim to rid the world of nuclear weapons, he was treated not as a peacenik but as a statesman. Today his ambition seems a fantasy. Although the world continues
to comfort itself with the thought that mutually assured destruction is unlikely, the
risk that somebody somewhere will use a nuclear weapon
is growing apace. ¶ Every nuclear power is spending lavishly to upgrade its atomic arsenal (see article). Russia’s
defence budget has grown by over 50% since 2007, and fully a third of it is devoted to nuclear weapons: twice the share of, say, France.
China , long a nuclear minnow, is adding to its stocks and investing heavily in submarines and mobile missile batteries.
Pakistan is amassing dozens of battlefield nukes to make up for its inferiority to India in conventional forces. North Korea is
thought to be capable of adding a warhead a year to its stock of around ten, and is working on missiles that can strike the west coast of
the United States. Even the Nobel peace laureate in the White House has asked Congress for almost $350 billion to undertake a decade-long programme of modernisation
of America’s arsenal. ¶ New actors with more versatile weapons have turned nuclear doctrine into guesswork. Even during
the cold war, despite all that game theory and brainpower, the Soviet Union and America frequently misread what the other was up to. India and Pakistan, with little
experience and less contact, have virtually nothing to guide them in a crisis but mistrust and paranoia. If
Iran and then Saudi Arabia and possibly Egypt join Israel in the ranks of nuclear powers, each
weapons proliferate in the Middle East, as
will have to manage a bewildering four-
dimensional stand-off. ¶ Worst of all is the instability . During much of the cold war the two superpowers, anxious to avoid Armageddon, were
willing to tolerate the status quo. Today the ground is shifting under everyone’s feet. ¶ Some countries want nuclear weapons to prop up a
tottering state. Pakistan insists its weapons are safe, but the outside world cannot shake the fear that they may fall into the hands of Islamist
terrorists, or even religious zealots within its own armed forces. When history catches up with North Korea’s Kim dynasty, as sooner or later it must, nobody knows
what will happen to its nukes—whether they might be inherited, sold, eliminated or, in a last futile gesture, detonated. ¶ Others want nuclear weapons not to freeze the
status quo, but to change it. Russia has started to wield nuclear threats as an offensive weapon in its strategy of intimidation. Its
military exercises routinely stage dummy nuclear attacks on such capitals as Warsaw and Stockholm. Mr Putin’s speeches contain veiled nuclear threats. Dmitry Kiselev, one
of the Kremlin’s mouthpieces, has declared with relish that Russian nuclear forces could turn America into “radioactive ash”. ¶ Just rhetoric, you may say. But the murder of
Boris Nemtsov, an opposition leader, on the Kremlin’s doorstep on February 27th was only the latest sign that Mr Putin’s Russia is heading into the geopolitical badlands
(see article). Resentful,
nationalistic and violent, it wants to rewrite the Western norms that underpin the status
quo. First in Georgia and now in Ukraine, Russia has shown it will escalate to extremes to assert its hold over its neighbours and convince the West that intervention is
pointless. Even if Mr Putin is bluffing about nuclear weapons (and there is no reason to think he is), any nationalist leader who comes after him could be even more
dangerous. ¶ Towards midnight¶ China poses a more distant threat, but an unignorable one. Although Sino-American relations hardly look like the cold war, China
seems destined to challenge the United States for supremacy in large parts of Asia; its military spending is growing by 10% or more a year. Nuclear
expansion is designed to give China a chance to retaliate using a “second strike”, should America attempt to destroy its arsenal. Yet the two barely talk about
nuclear contingencies—and a crisis over, say, Taiwan could escalate alarmingly . In addition Japan, seeing China’s conventional
military strength, may feel it can no longer rely on America for protection. If so, Japan and South Korea could go for the bomb—creating, with
North Korea, another petrifying regional stand-off. ¶ What to do? The most urgent need is to revitalise nuclear diplomacy. One
priority is to defend the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which slows the spread of weapons by reassuring
countries that their neighbours are not developing nukes. It was essential that Iran stayed in the treaty (unlike North Korea, which left). The
danger is that, like Iran, signatories will see enrichment and reprocessing as preparation for a bomb of their own—leading their neighbours to enrich in turn. That calls
for a collective effort to discourage enrichment and reprocessing, and for America to shore up its allies’
confidence . ¶ You don’t have to like the other side to get things done. Arms control became a vital part of Soviet-American
relations. So it could between China and America, and between America and Putin’s Russia . Foes such as India
and Pakistan can foster stability simply by talking. The worst time to get to know your adversary is during a stand-off.¶ In 1960 Albert Wohlstetter,
an American nuclear strategist, wrote that, “We must contemplate some extremely unpleasant possibilities, just because we want to avoid them.” So too today, the essential
first step in confronting the growing nuclear threat is to stare it full in the face.
--- XT: Rejection Collapse Deal
Deal makes it impossible for Iran to covertly engage in nuclear activity
Devaney 7/19, staff writer at The Hill, (Tim, 7/19/15, Obama aide: 'Virtually impossible' for Iran to hide nuclear activity, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/policy/international/248444-energy-secretary-virtually-impossible-for-iran-to-hide-nuclear-activity)//kap
One of the Obama administration's top negotiators is defending the controversial Iranian nuclear agreement from critics who say it does not go far enough to protect the
West.
Under the agreement, it will be “virtually impossible” for Iran to cover up nuclear activity, Energy Secretary
Ernest Moniz says.
“We are better off forever in terms of Iranian nuclear activity under this agreement than we would be without
it,” Moniz told "Fox News Sunday.”
Moniz made the rounds on the Sunday morning political talk shows.
Critics have suggested the nuclear agreement gives Iran too much leeway to secretly build a weapon. One of the chief
concerns is that investigators could be forced to wait 24 days before inspecting covert sites suspected of nuclear activity. Some fear this will give Iran enough time to hide
any traces of such activity.
“You wouldn’t tell a drug dealers, give them a 24-day notice,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, one of the deal’s biggest critics, said. “They’d just flush the drugs
down the toilet."
But Moniz said three
weeks is a “reasonable” amount of time to inspect for nuclear activity.
Flushing things down the toilet “is not so simple with nuclear materials,” he told ABC’s “This Week.” “ We
are very confident in our ability to
detect the vestiges of any nuclear work beyond 24 days.”
Eventually, inspectors would collect environmental samples.
"When environmental samples are taken and nuclear activity has taken place, it is virtually impossible to clean
up that place,” Moniz said on “Fox News Sunday.” You can paint the floors, you can do what you want. We feel very confident that we would
find evidence of nuclear activity.”
The key for western negotiators was “getting a defined timeframe” so Iran couldn’t hold inspectors out for more than 24 days, Moniz said on CBS’s "Face the Nation."
“The
part of the agreement that is absolutely critical is the one that prevents them from having a
weapon,” Moniz told CNN’s “State of the Union."
“There’s
a lot more you need for a nuclear explosive and if you look at the agreement you will see an
indefinite commitment to not pursuing four major activities needed for a weapon,” he added on Fox.
Moniz said the Obama administration is simply trying to clean up a mess left by the Bush administration.
"The issue of Iran having a nuclear program was already established in the previous administration,” Moniz said. "Clearly, what
we have done is we have
dramatically limited and constrained the program."
The deal solves Iranian nuclear buildup—sanctions were ineffective
Hensch 7/15, staff writer at The Hill, (Mark, 7/15/15, Energy secretary: Sanctions weren’t stopping Iran, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefingroom/news/247969-energy-secretary-sanctions-werent-stopping-iran)//kap
Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz said on Wednesday that economic sanctions were not preventing Iran’s nuclear
arms research.
The Iran deal negotiator added that placing
greater restrictions on Iran’s atomic energy capabilities better prevents its
acquisition of nuclear weapons instead.
“First of all, we all know that sanctions
“It
were effective in bringing Iran to the table,” Moniz said on CNN’s “New Day.”
did not stop them from pursuing a nuclear weapons program quite aggressively,” he added.
The Obama administration announced a landmark deal on Tuesday restricting Iran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for economic sanctions relief.
Moniz argued on Wednesday that the
agreement’s details will keep Tehran in check for years to come.
“This is a long-term deal that has various phases,” he said.
“There are extremely serious constraints on what Iran can do in a nuclear capacity,” Moniz said.
“Make no mistake about it – this
agreement has stronger restrictions on Iran than would be in place without it,” he added.
Moniz also rebuked criticisms that the sanctions relief Iran is receiving would help its military and terrorism sponsorship.
“It was clear from the beginning these
were negotiations about the nuclear issue,” he said of international talks started 20
months ago.
“Our deal is not based on an assumption about how they will spend these funds,” Moniz said of money Iran received from the lifting of sanctions.
“Clearly, we all hope
this could lead to different behavior,” he added.
Moniz additionally said that Secretary of State John Kerry had repeatedly sought the release of four Americans currently languishing in Iranian custody.
“Secretary of Kerry never failed to raise the issue of the Americans unjustly held in Iran,” he said. “These issues – a whole range of them – were there.”
Instability Impact
Iran deal is key to de-escalate tensions in the Middle East
Toosi and Nather 4/6/15 - Nahal Toosi is a foreign affairs correspondent at POLITICO. She joined POLITICO from The Associated Press,
where she reported from and/or served as an editor in New York, Islamabad, Kabul and London. She was one of the first foreign correspondents to reach Abbottabad,
Pakistan, after the killing of Osama bin Laden. David Nather is an experienced congressional journalist and author, with two books on the new health care law. (Nahal and
David, “The Iran deal’s cheerleaders Outside groups applaud agreement after briefings by White House”, Politico, April 6, 2015,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/iran-nuclear-experts-endorse-iran-deal-116697.html//DM)
The White House is getting a cheering section going for the Iran deal — thanks to a ramped-up series of
briefings to allies who can make the case from the outside. Diplomats, scientists and other activists began
making their own arguments Monday for the preliminary nuclear deal reached last week, releasing statements that praised
the agreement and urged lawmakers to give negotiators a chance to pursue a comprehensive accord. Story Continued Below The words of support came as President Barack
Obama and his aides are trying to sell the framework deal to members of Congress, especially senators from both parties who have said they want to have some oversight of
the agreement. Activists in favor of the deal say they’re hoping congressional leaders will hold off on legislation that they fear could scuttle future talks. White House aides
say they’re reaching out to allies and experts to explain the deal – not to tell them what to say, but to make sure they’re fully informed about the agreement. “I think it’s fair
to say we are engaging all manner of outside experts and groups so that they understand the deal and our view of different legislation, and they make their own
a group of 30 U.S. specialists
on nuclear security endorsed the framework as a “vitally important step forward” that will
“strengthen U.S. security and that of our partners in the region.” “We urge policymakers in key capitals
to support the deal and the steps necessary to ensure timely implementation and rigorous compliance with
the agreement,” wrote the signatories, who included Robert Einhorn, a former State Department official and past negotiator on the Iran talks and former U.S.
determinations about how to be heard,” said one White House official. King Salman is shown. | Getty In one statement,
Ambassador to the U.N. Thomas R. Pickering. Pickering and Einhorn also were among 50 former diplomats, defense officials and political leaders who signed a separate
statement which, in more cautious language, urged Congress to stay patient and “to take no action that would impede further progress or undermine the American
negotiators’ efforts.” The statement was released by The Iran Project, an independent organization that tries to improve U.S.-Iran ties. Rushed action by Congress could
derail negotiations, “creating the perception that the U.S. is responsible for the collapse of the agreement; unraveling international cooperation on sanctions; and triggering
the unfreezing of Iran’s nuclear program and the rapid ramping up of Iranian nuclear capacity,” declares the statement, which listed former Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright and former GOP Sen. Richard Lugar, a foreign policy mentor to Obama when he was a senator, among its signers. “Such a situation could enhance the possibility
of war.” Benjamin Netanyahu is pictured. | AP Photo Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said “there is loose coordination going on
between organizations and experts who support the framework deal.” But he and others insisted they are not taking marching orders from the West Wing. “They don’t give
us talking points. They do convey key messages,” said Jamal Abdi of the National Iranian American Council. Even with the low-pressure sales pitch, the White House
engagement with such groups has intensified since the deal was announced Thursday. “There has been a pretty good amount of outreach in the last few days,” said one
member of an outside group that has participated in the briefings. “There’s a big difference between inviting one person from each organization to the White House …
[and] going out and actually saying, ‘I want to brief everyone on your team. When’s the best time for you?’” The administration hasn’t tried to give these groups talking
points, the person said, and there haven’t been any big secrets that have been revealed at the briefings, but they’ve served their purpose by getting the groups interested in
speaking out. “It’s less about asking us to do anything and more that the discussion around the table turns to, ‘We need to really hammer home on this point.’” Energy
Secretary Dr. Ernest Moniz, right, accompanied by White House Press secretary Josh Earnest, speaks to the media during the daily briefing in the Brady Press Briefing
Room of the White House in Washington, Monday, April 6, 2015. President Barack Obama is casting the Iran talks as part of a broader foreign policy doctrine that sees
American power as a safeguard that gives him the ability to take calculated risks. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) The Obama administration kept up its own public
sales efforts on Monday, with Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz giving a detailed presentation during the daily briefing at the White House and Deputy National Security
Adviser Ben Rhodes making a round of TV appearances, from CNN to Israeli TV. Meanwhile, the advocacy group Win Without War posted a collection of endorsements
from a wide variety of groups – including The
Atlantic Council, the Ploughshares Fund, the National Security Network, the
Center for a New American Security, and the United Methodist Church’s General Board of Church and Society. It also urged supporters
to “Call Congress and Seal the Deal.” The group posted the Capitol switchboard telephone number and provided a script for would-be callers
that describes the agreement as “the best way to cut off Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon.” It also suggests that they say they oppose a bill by Sens. Bob Corker and Bob
Menendez that would require congressional approval for the deal. Also on Monday, NIAC, the Arab American Institute and J Street, a left-leaning Jewish organization,
released a statement arguing that the
preliminary deal “may provide an important first step towards deescalating
regional tensions and pave the way for resolving the many conflicts that still persist.” And Samuel R.
Berger, a former national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, wrote an opinion piece for POLITICO Magazine that dismissed
the idea that there’s a stronger deal to be had: “There is no second bite at this apple. This is a good deal. We should not be distracted by
talk of a better one.” US Secretary of State John Kerry, centre watches on a tablet as the US President Barack Obama addresses the US, at the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, or Ecole Polytechnique Federale De Lausanne, in Lausanne, Switzerland, Thursday, April 2, 2015, after Iran nuclear program talks finished with
extended sessions. The United
States, Iran and five other world powers on Thursday announced an understanding
outlining limits on Iran's nuclear program so it cannot lead to atomic weapons, directing negotiators toward
achieving a comprehensive agreement within three months. (AP Photo/Brendan Smialowski, Pool) The framework has received heavy
criticism from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who views Iran as a mortal threat to his country and says the deal does not do enough to prevent Tehran from
developing a nuclear weapon. Organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee have blasted the framework agreement. According to media reports,
Israeli officials have been circulating a list of questions aimed at U.S.-led negotiators involved in the talks with Iran. The queries reportedly include “What message does it
send when it gives such far-reaching concessions to a regime that for years has defied [U.N. Security Council] resolutions? ” and “Will the deal not encourage nuclear
proliferation in the Middle East?” Kate Gould, a lobbyist with the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker organization, said she’s been hearing more interest
from faith-based groups who want to get involved in the wake of the announcement last week. She said the primary focus now was on preventing the Corker legislation
from coming to a vote. “I’m sure there’s going to be a much bigger push coming up,” she said.
Impact is nuclear war
Hobson, professor of physics at University of Arkansas, 3/31/2015
(Art, “Commentary: Absent agreement, Iran, U.S., Israel on path to war,” http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2015/mar/31/commentary-absent-agreement-iran-u-sis/?opinion)
One of history's greatest tragedies was the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in August 1945, a calamity
compounded three days later by a second bomb exploded over Nagasaki. It was, like most tragedy, made virtually inevitable by foregoing blunders:
revengeful treatment of Germany following World War I, U.S. failure to join World War II when it began in 1939, thoughtless responses to Japanese aggression in Asia
during the 1930s, and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Since
1945, nuclear weapons have remained humankind's
greatest single immediate threat.
If we don't want to repeat the mistakes that led to Hiroshima, we had better treat the Iranian nuclear question
rationally, realistically, and without childish bravado. U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton's recent letter to Iran, and Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent speech to Congress, were not
serious. Netanyahu argued that a nuclear agreement with Iran would be a bad deal and should be rejected. Cotton suggested to Iran that a future U.S. president could revoke
the agreement.
None of the agreement's opponents appear to have thought through the consequences of following their leads. Iran,
having no further reason for restraint and every incentive for aggression, will move quickly toward a bomb; Israel will urge
action to prevent a bomb and will pressure the U.S. to join it in threatening Iran; and we could easily be drawn into war -- a
blunder that would dwarf even our foolish adventure into Iraq beginning in 2003.
The realistic fact is that, absent
an agreement, the United States, Iran and Israel are on the road to war, possibly a nuclear war.
Turns case – Terrorism
Iran deal solves middle-Eastern warfare, spreads democracy, and eliminates ISIS and
radicalism in the middle eat
Parsi 6/30/15 - Trita Parsi is the founder and current president of the National Iranian American Council, author of Treacherous Alliance and A Single Roll of
the Dice. (Trita, “Iran's nuclear talks: Five reasons why a deal would be good for the U.S.”, CNN, June 30, 2015, http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/30/opinions/iran-nucleartalks-parsi//DM)
(CNN)The criticism of the pending nuclear deal between Iran and world powers is intensifying. Opponents of the deal will spend millions of dollars on ads pushing the U.S.
public and Congress to kill the deal in the next few days. But while a fortune already has been spent on nit-picking the ongoing talks, virtually nothing has been invested in
developing an alternative, viable solution to limit Iran's nuclear activities. The
reality is that the opponents of the deal don't have a
solution, they only have criticism. And for many, the real value of the nuclear deal has been lost amid the barrage
of condemnation surrounding the talks. Americans doubt talks will prevent Iranian nuclear weapon It's worthwhile to remind
ourselves why this deal is so important -- and why it would be a strategic mistake of Iraq War
proportions to let this opportunity slip out of our hands. Preventing the bomb ... The two first objectives the deal would achieve are
paramount: firstly, it will prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb; secondly, it will prevent a disastrous war with
Iran. The limitations and inspections regime the deal would impose on the Iranian nuclear program will make
it virtually impossible for Tehran to build a bomb. Were it to choose to go down that path, it would get caught almost
instantaneously thanks to the new high-tech inspection instruments that will be installed at Iranian nuclear facilities. In addition, if evidence arises
that Iran has begun nuclear activities at undeclared sites, then Iran will be obliged to provide access to those
sites as well. No other option comes even close to this deal when it comes to closing off all of Iran's
paths to a bomb. Military action in particular is far inferior -- and far more risky. ... And a disastrous war Moreover,
the deal will prevent a war with Iran -- particularly important given that the absence of a solution to the
nuclear standoff has caused the U.S. and Iran to gravitate towards a military confrontation. If the talks fail -or are undermined -- Iran's nuclear program would unshackle, enabling Tehran to inch closer to a weapons
option. That in turn, would increase the risk of an Israeli or American attack on Iranian targets, even though
bombing the country's nuclear facilities would at best only slow the program a few years. The Iranians
would hit back and soon enough, and the U.S. would be embroiled in yet another war in the Middle
East with no end in sight. No wonder the Iran deal has broad support among the U.S. public. Unleashing Iran's moderates Third, the deal will
help unleash Iran's vibrant, young (the median age is 28!) and moderate society, which is continuously
pushing Iran in a democratic direction. The deal enjoys solid support among the Iranian public as well as among Iranian civil society leaders, partly
because they believe the deal "would enable political and cultural reforms." America benefits if the
democratic aspirations of the Iranian people are increasingly met, because a more democratic Iran is
a more moderate Iran. What's the deal with the Iran nuclear negotiations? This is particularly important at a time when
the violent winds of religious radicalism are ravaging the Middle East and beyond. America is in
desperate need of an injection of political moderation in the region. An Iran that moves towards
democracy could provide that. A boost in the fight against ISIS Fourth, ISIS and other jihadist groups threaten both
Iran and the U.S. Yet coordination and collaboration between the two against these violent terrorist
organizations has been minimal because neither side has the political ability to expand coordination until the
nuclear dispute has been settled first. A well-placed Iranian source told me recently that in a post-deal environment, Iran is
ready to put in 40,000-60,000 ground troops to eliminate ISIS over the next three years. Ideally, the U.S. would
provide air support, he explained. The source made clear the commitment would not be a quid pro quo to get a nuclear deal. Iran nuclear talks: 'Security of the
world is at stake' If true, this would be the first commitment of ground troops by any state in the region to take on ISIS. But even short of this, Iran has
already provided more support in the fight against ISIS than any of America's actual allies. There is nearconsensus that airstrikes alone will not defeat ISIS. Ground troops are needed, but who will provide them? The American public
is certainly not in the mood for putting more troops on the ground in Iraq. The Iraqi army has proven desperately inadequate.
The nuclear deal may help square this circle. Deal gives America more options Last but not least, the nuclear deal can help
provide America with more options in the region in the sense that it reduces America's reliance on
authoritarian Arab states such as Saudi Arabia -- which, despite being a key U.S. ally, has played a central role in
spreading Islamic radicalism and jihadism. As Jeremy Shapiro and Richard Sokolsky recently pointed out, the Iran deal is not
about getting into bed with Tehran. But it can be used to get out of bed with the Saudis. And with
that, America's hands will be freer to truly deal with and defeat the threat of Islamic radicalism
fomented by the Salafists in the Saudi kingdom. U.S., allies and Iran plan to miss June 30th nuclear talks deadline Former Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen put it best: "We need to re-examine all of the relationships we enjoy in the region, relationships primarily with Sunnidominated nations. Detente with Iran might better balance our efforts across the sectarian divide." In the coming weeks, emotions will run high in the debate over the Iran
deal. It will be critical to distinguish between the minutia and the truly essential. At
that counts.
historic moments like this, it is the bigger picture
Turns Case – Democracy
Iran deal paves the way for democratization
Hashemi 6/28/15 - PhD, University of Toronto MA, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University BA (Honors), University of
Western Ontario. (Nader, “HOW A NUCLEAR DEAL HELPS DEMOCRACY IN IRAN”, The Cairo Review of Global Affairs, June 18, 2015,
http://www.aucegypt.edu/GAPP/Cairoreview/Pages/articleDetails.aspx?aid=835//DM)
Most of the debate in the West on the Iran nuclear deal has focused on questions related to Western security interests in the Middle East. Will a deal ultimately prevent Iran
from obtaining a nuclear weapon? Will it significantly inhibit a nuclear arms race in the region? How will Israel and the Gulf Cooperation Countries be affected, and to what
extent will Iran be able to expand its regional influence after the lifting of sanctions? Almost ignored in this discussion, however, are the effects that a nuclear accord might
have on internal Iranian politics and society. Specifically, how
might a final nuclear agreement between Iran and the West
influence the prospects for democracy and democratization within the Islamic Republic? June 2009 is a key
reference point in the struggle for democracy within Iran. Fearing a return of the reformists to power, the Iranian regime falsified the
presidential election results that would have removed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from the presidency. As a result, a nonviolent mini-revolt known as the Green Movement
demanded a vote recount, greater political transparency, and more broadly the democratization of Iran. Protests
rocked the country for six months
before they were violently suppressed. According the Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Green Movement posed a greater
threat to the internal stability of the Islamic Republic than the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. As a result of this event, Iran’s post-revolutionary
social contract lay in tatters. Until this point, Iran’s clerical leaders were able to carefully manage public demands for political change and factional rivalry via
an electoral process that though never “free” was perceived to be “fair,” in the sense that the integrity of the ballot box was guaranteed. After the stolen election of 2009
and the ensuing crackdown, this consensus no longer existed. The base of support of the Islamic Republic narrowed considerably as a deep crisis of political legitimacy set
in. Six years have passed, however, since this critical moment in Iran’s post-revolutionary history. While the legacy of the Green Movement continues to haunt the Islamic
Republic, in recent years a
set of political developments, at the international, regional, and domestic levels, have
coalesced to limit the prospects for political change and to bolster authoritarianism in Iran. Collectively, these
developments have closed the door for democratization in the short term. If the social and political conditions that produced
them were to change, however, these doors to democratization could be reopened. At the international level, Iran’s dispute with the Permanent Member of
the United Nations Security Council and Germany (P5+1) has negatively affected the prospects for democracy
in several ways. The broad sanctions placed on Iran have had a greater impact on ordinary Iranians than they
have had on the regime. In particular, civil society and the middle class, which forms the core support base for the
democratic opposition, have borne the brunt of Iran’s collapsing economy. Rather than focus on political organizing, a focus on
simple survival has taken priority. It is precisely for this reason that some of the most vociferous defenders of a nuclear
deal with the West are Iranian civil society and human rights activists. Secondly, Iran’s ruling oligarchy has
successfully deployed a nationalist narrative to justify its nuclear policy internally. Tensions with the West are portrayed through
the long history of foreign invention in Iran. Iranians have been told by their rulers that once again Western powers are
bullying Iran, threatening to bomb them, and applying a double standard in attempting to dictate Iran’s internal energy policy. These arguments have resonated
across the ideological spectrum. Today many secular Iranians who wouldn’t ordinarily support the Islamic Republic, make
an exception when comes the nuclear impasse with the West for reasons of national pride. Thus, by casting
itself as the defender of national sovereignty, Iran’s leadership has benefited from the nuclear
standoff with the West. In the aftermath of a nuclear agreement, the manipulation of this issue to boost the regime’s legitimacy will be a far more difficult
task. This point has been indirectly acknowledged by the editor of Shargh, a leading reformist newspaper, who has noted that if “there’s less tension
internationally, there’ll be more stability internally,” implying that a nuclear deal would help create better
social conditions for democratization. A set of regional events has also indirectly bolstered authoritarianism in Iran. The post-Arab Spring
regional chaos, marked by sectarianism, the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the spread of salafi-jihadism, and the collapse of Libya, Syria, Iraq, and now
Yemen, have scared Iranians away from demanding political change. As one Iranian blogger has noted “people now think
twice about taking action to change the system because they know change might result in a disaster.” These regional
events have reinforced a preexisting Iranian disdain for violence and revolutionary change. Iranian political culture has been deeply scarred by the upheavals of the 1979
revolution, the bloody Iran-Iraq war and the post-September 11 chaos that engulfed neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan in the aftermath of the American occupations.
Prominent reformist journalist and Green Movement supporter Saeed Leylaz, who was sentenced to prison after the 2009 events, aptly summarizes how recent regional
chaos has reduced demands for political change. Reflecting the new temper among Iranian democrats, he now takes the position that “if
we want to emphasize
our own points of view over those of our competitors within the system, the result will be another Syria.” All
of this has shaped domestic Iranian politics in negative ways for democratization. In 2015, several trends
are now discernible. The first trend is unrelenting state repression. The crackdown that followed Green
Movement protests has been ongoing and arguably the level of suppression is greater today that it was in 2009. The hardline-
controlled Iranian judiciary continues to hand out heavy sentences to civil society activists, censorship and
executions are at record levels, and women and minorities are subject to ongoing harassment, marginalization,
and discrimination. In a recent press conference that coincided with the second anniversary of his election, President Rowhani admitted that since coming to
power there has been “little opening” for advancing his campaign promise to increase social and political
freedoms. He blamed right wing “pressure groups” for this, while reminding his supporters to be patient because “changes cannot take place overnight.” The second
trend pertains to the ongoing and deepening crisis of legitimacy facing the Islamic Republic. This is the Iranian regime’s Achilles Heel. While foreign crises help direct
attention away from it, this dominant feature of Iranian politics fundamentally shapes state-society relations today. Evidence of this legitimation crisis is abundant. For
example, in February, the Iranian judiciary suddenly banned Iranian media from publishing comments by or images of former reformist President Mohammad Khatami.
Why a two-time president, who occupied the second highest office in the country for eight years, suddenly posed a threat to political order is a revealing question. Part of
the answer lies in the fact that as a reformist politician and Green Movement supporter, Khatami remains a popular and influential figure. With parliamentary elections
scheduled for 2016, Iran’s clerical elite are starting to panic.
There is great fear that the control of the parliament could be lost to
reformist parties. In fact, Ali Saeedi, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s special representative to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, openly acknowledged this
fear in a recent speech. Likewise, the head of the powerful Guardian Council, Ahmad Jannati, went a step further and announced that when it comes the ideological
screening of candidates for parliament “those who have a (ideological) background that is unknown and after investigation this still remains unclear, the Guardian Council
does not have the right to approve them.” In other words, there
is an assumption that every Iranian citizen is guilty (of regime
disloyalty) until proven innocent. At the level of society, there is irrefutable evidence of Iranians displaying behaviors and pursuing lifestyles that explicitly
reject that values and norms of the Islamic Republic. Widespread secularization exists, especially among young people and among the sizeable urban and middle classes. This
is most visible in terms of avoiding the key Islamic rituals of prayer and fasting. The Ministry of Health recently announced that 150 alcohol treatment centers would be
opening in Iran in response to a growing societal epidemic. This is noteworthy because the Islamic Republic officially bans the production, sale and consumption of alcohol.
After the 1979 revolution, there was a major attempt to construct a new Iranian Muslim citizen that rejected Western and secular values. The colossal failure of this project
is hard to miss. Even
the supreme leader has publicly acknowledged that the Islamic Republic faces a crisis of
legitimacy. During the last presidential election, fearing a low voter turnout, he appealed to Iranians to turn up at the ballot box including those who “for whatever
reason [do] not support the regime of the Islamic Republic.” He instead appealed to their sense of (secular) nationalism arguing that a high voter turnout would send a
strong message to Iran’s enemies. In a more recent speech on the anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, the supreme leader expressed a fear of liberal values
penetrating Iran. He specifically chastised those who were distorting Khomeini’s legacy by claiming he was “liberal-minded, which under no conditions existed in his
political, intellectual and cultural behavior.” A nuclear deal could help put Iran back on the road to democratization. One
of the most controversial aspects of the tentative agreement is the sunset clause. This is the provision that states that for fifteen years Iran will have a limited nuclear
program under strict international inspection but after this time period, these restrictions will be lifted. Western critics have pointed to this clause to argue that this “paves
in the coming fifteen years, the
Islamic Republic will face increasing challenges from within society that will affect its future political stability
and possibly its political trajectory. The biggest challenge will be the likely death of the supreme leader, who turns 76 in July. Given the enormous power
Iran’s path to the bomb”—all the country has to do is wait out the clock. Ignored in this debate, however, is that
his office wields and the fact there is no senior cleric with sufficient political and religious authority that can replace him, the inevitable departure of Ali Khamenei will
produce an enormous internal crisis for Islamic Republic. When this will happen and how it might play out is unknown, but Khamenei’s
passing will
create a unique crisis of governance that democratic forces will be able to exploit. Thus, over the medium term,
Iran’s democratic prospects seem brighter. Not only is there a long tradition of democratic activism stretching
back to over one hundred years, but the preconditions for democracy that social scientists generally agree
upon, already exist in Iran. To wit: high levels of socio-economic modernization (literacy, mass communications, and a modern economy), a suitable class
structure (the existence of a sizeable middle class), and a proper political culture (norms, habits, and values that are democracy-enhancing). Equally important are the
demographic numbers that are favorable to democratization. Specifically, young
people now constitute the majority of Iran’s population.
They are highly educated, globally connected, politically secular and deeply alienated from Islamist rule, and
what’s more, they desire substantive gradual, non-violent political change.
Turns case – Heg
Turns case---tanks US foreign policy influence writ large
Bruno, 15 [Alessandro Bruno, Will Iran and the West get a Nowruz Nuclear Deal?, March 22, 2015, http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/will-iran-and-the-westget-a-nowruz-nuclear-deal/]
Both Rouhani
and Obama are at a crossroads and both are having to gamble in a challenge unlike any other in the past few decades. The
challenge is as much a part of the negotiation process itself as in dealing with the many domestic and regional obstacles. Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a dramatic speech to convince a Republican and almost treasonous Congress, considering the affront on President Obama’s
authority, to prevent in any way an American understanding with the Iranians. In short, the head of a foreign government, just days ahead of an election at home – which he
would win – has launched a new challenge to the American president on his home turf. Such an unprecedented event has proven to be very disruptive in relations between
Washington and Tel Aviv. It may backfire on Netanyahu, who will now start his fourth term as prime minister with a decidedly unfriendly White House, which has nothing
to lose. President Obama may well be tempted to secure an agreement with Iran even faster than before, conceding Iran what it wants most, which is an immediate halt to
the sanctions.
Rouhani cannot sign anything without a clear commitment on this point. Such is the mandate he has from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the regime hardliners, the
Revolutionary Guards or Pasdaran, the conservative clergy but also, and more importantly, all moderate forces as well, especially those that led the ‘green’ revolt of 2009.
Moderates and pragmatists agree on this point. The Iranian regime, while religious in inspiration, is also highly nationalistic, which is what has kept Iranians remarkably
united in the face of severe hardships from war to embargo. No Iranian, whether he identifies with Khamenei or the greens or the left wing Tudeh, would accept a
humiliating arrangement. For his part, President Obama
has staked his political and historical legacy on a deal with Iran; it is
too late for him to withdraw without losing face and credibility – which would be very damaging to the
United States and its ability to influence international events far beyond the Middle East from
Bogota to Beijing. Iran has much to lose as it is engaged addressing problems in Iraq and Syria, and in Iran itself it is balancing the internal economic situation
with oil prices continuing to fall and world reserves increasing.
Turns Case – US-European Relations
The deal boosts US-European relations despite Israel’s anger
Fabian 7/14, staff writer at The Hill, (Jordan, 7/14/15, Obama discusses Iran nuke deal with Netanyahu, Obama discusses Iran nuke deal with Netanyahu, The
Hill, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/247852-obama-discusses-iran-nuke-deal-with-netanyahu)//kap
President Obama on Tuesday phoned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss the nuclear agreement with Iran.
Obama told Netanyahu that the deal “will verifiably prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon while ensuring
the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program going forward,” according to a White House statement.
He argued the deal would benefit Israel’s security by cutting of Teheran’s path to a nuclear bomb, but said the agreement “will not
diminish our concerns regarding Iran's support for terrorism and threats toward Israel.”
The deal places limits on Teheran’s nuclear program for at least a decade in exchange for lifting billions of dollars worth of international sanctions.
Netanyahu has been one of Obama’s staunchest critics for brokering an agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program.
On Thursday, the Israeli leader called the agreement “a historic mistake for the entire world.”
“In every area that was supposed to prevent Iran from gaining the capacity to arm itself with nuclear weapons, far-reaching concessions were made,” he added. “In addition,
Iran will receive hundreds of billions of dollars which it can use as a means to fuel its terror machine, its aggression and its expansionism in the Middle East and around the
world.”
Speaking in the East Room of the White House earlier Tuesday, Obama addressed concerns long held by Netanyahu and others in Israel.
He said he shares Israel’s concerns about Iran’s threats against the Jewish state and its sponsorship of groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which have launched attacks
against Israel.
“But that is precisely why we are taking this step -- because an Iran armed with a nuclear weapon would be far more destabilizing and far more dangerous to our friends and
to the world,” Obama said.
Obama also phoned European heads of state involved in brokering the nuclear agreement with Iran.
Obama made separate calls to British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor
Angela Merkel, and European foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini soon after the deal was finalized on Tuesday morning.
The leaders praised the deal as a “historic solution that will verifiably prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear
weapon by cutting off all of the potential pathways to a bomb while ensuring the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program going forward,” the White House said in a
statement.
The leaders pledged to maintain close coordination as the deal is implemented.
In addition to the European powers, the U.S. was joined in the negotiations by Russia and China. The White House has not yet said if Obama has spoken to Russian
President Vladimir Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Deal is popular among European nations
Devaney 7/19, staff writer at The Hill, (Tim, 7/19/15, British PM: Threat of nuclear-armed Iran now off the table, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/policy/international/248452-british-pm-threat-of-nuclear-armed-iran-now-off-the-table)//kap
British Prime Minister David Cameron defended the Iranian nuclear agreement on Sunday as the “toughest” deal
within reach and assured the public that western nations are safer now because of it.
"The
threat of a nuclear-armed Iran that is now off the table, and that’s a success,” Cameron told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
"Of course, there will be those who complain about details of the deal,” added Cameron, whose nation took part in the negotiations
with Iran. "But fundamentally, this is the toughest set of proposals put in place, and verifications put in place, and
inspections put in place that I think we’ve seen in any of these negotiations.”
Critics have suggested the agreement lets Iran off the hook and makes it easier for Tehran to develop a nuclear weapon.
But Cameron
“This
disputed these claims.
deal says it’s never acceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” Cameron said.
“It’s so much better than the alternative,” he added. “If there wasn’t a deal, I think we would face an Iran with a nuclear weapon. That would have given a terrible choice to
the west of allow that to happen or taking military action.
AT: US not key to deal
U.S. compliance is key to overall effectiveness of the deal – backing out would
prompt Iran to respond in kind.
CBS 7/17 (“Iran deal set to become international law”, 7/17/2015, CBS news, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-security-council-vote-iran-nuclear-dealresolution-us-congress-objections/, accessed 7/19/15)//RZ
With all five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council involved in the marathon Iran
negotiations, the resolution's adoption Monday was almost certain.
The resolution implements an intricate deal that places restrictions on Iran's nuclear program while allowing relief from sanctions that the country's leaders say have hurt its
economy.
Monday's vote will come despite calls from some U.S. lawmakers to delay Security Council approval until
Congress reviews the deal.
CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk says the resolution will make
official implementation for 90 days, to allow for the U.S. Congress' consideration.
the Iran nuclear deal international law, but will delay its
Falk explained that while
Congress cannot block the implementation of the deal, if the legislative body votes against it and
has enough votes to override a promised veto from President Obama, it is not clear what would happen next.
A U.S. official told CBS News that American
law doesn't "trump" U.N. resolutions, but if Congress were to vote against
the measure -- and garner enough votes to override a presidential veto -- lawmakers could stop U.S. sanctions being
lifted, which could prompt Iran to declare the U.S. as non-compliant with the terms of the deal and to back out.
If U.S. lawmakers were to decide after Monday's vote that they wanted changes to the terms of the agreement, it would essentially
be too late, because it would require the Security Council to propose a new resolution -- and there would
likely be little appetite for such deliberations among the other negotiating partners.
The chairman of the Senate's foreign relations committee, Bob Corker, on Thursday wrote a letter to
President Obama saying, "We urge you
to postpone the vote at the United Nations until after Congress considers this agreement."
But the chief U.S. negotiator in the Iran talks, Wendy Sherman, rejected that idea Thursday.
She told reporters: "It
would have been a little difficult when all of the (countries negotiating with Iran) wanted to go to the United Nations to get an
us to say, 'Well, excuse me, the world, you should wait for the
United States Congress.'"
endorsement of this, since it is a product of the United Nations process, for
Sherman said the council resolution allows the "time and space" for a congressional review before the measure actually takes effect.
AT: Next President Rescinds Deal
Next prez can’t rescind it – this card is awesome
Pace 7/18/15 – AP White House Correspondent (Julie, Scuttling Iran deal might not be easy for next president, Seattle PI,
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/texas/article/Scuttling-Iran-deal-might-not-be-easy-for-next-6392212.php)//JJ
Unhappy with President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran?
Republicans running for the White House are vowing to
rescind the agreement, some on their first day in office.
But it may not be that easy.
new president could face big obstacles in turning that campaign promise
into U.S. policy. Among them: resistance from longtime American allies, an unraveling of the carefully
crafted international sanctions, and damage to U.S. standing with the rest of the world,
according to foreign policy experts.
If Iran lives up to its obligations, a
does not have infinite ability to get other countries to go along with them," said Jon Alterman,
director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "One of the consequences is the United States would be
increasingly isolated at a time when Iran is increasingly integrated with the rest of the world."
"The president
Both Obama and Republicans know firsthand the difficulties of dismantling major policies, a task that only gets harder the longer a policy has been in place.
After more than six years in office, Obama has failed to achieve his promise to shutter the Guantanamo Bay prison, despite signing an executive order authorizing its
closure on his first day in office. And more than five years after Obama's health care overhaul became law, Republicans have been unable to find a legal or legislative means
for repealing the sweeping measure.
While some elements of the nuclear accord don't go into effect immediately,
the centerpiece of the agreement is expected to be
implemented quickly. If Iran curbs its nuclear program as promised, it will receive billions of dollars in relief from international sanctions.
To Republican presidential candidates, rolling back that quid pro quo would be a top priority if they were to win the White House.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says he would "terminate the bad deal with Iran on day one" and work to persuade allies to reinstate economic sanctions lifted under the deal.
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry concurred, saying one of his first actions in office would be to "invalidate the president's Iran agreement."
Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, said that while he would consult with allies about the deal on his first day in office, he was inclined to "move toward the abrogation
of it." Florida Sen. Marco Rubio told The Associated Press he would withdraw from a deal even if allies objected.
The next president has no legal obligation to implement the nuclear agreement, which is a political document, not a binding treaty.
it's unlikely the European allies, who spent nearly two years negotiating
alongside the U.S., would be compelled to walk away and reinstate sanctions. And it's nearly
impossible to imagine Russia and China, which partnered with the U.S, Britain, France and Germany in the talks, following a
GOP president's lead.
But if there's no sign Iran is cheating,
"
Shattering something like this with the British and the French and the Germans — that has consequences," said Ilan Goldenberg,
a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and former Obama State Department official. "A
new president isn't going to want to
lead off like that."
To be sure, a U.S. president with a friendly Congress could unilaterally reinstate American sanctions on Iran. But
far less if other countries didn't follow Washington's lead.
the economic impact would be
U.S. partners in Asia, including Japan and South Korea, will also
likely have boosted their financial ties and oil purchases with Iran by the time a new
president takes office in January 2017.
Beyond Europe's interests, the White House says
AT: Iran Circumvents the Deal
Deal will successfully prevent Iran from building nukes—this evidence assumes
every scenario for attempted circumvention
Acton 7/16, staff writer at Foreign Policy, (James, 7/16/15, Iran Ain’t Gonna Sneak Out Under This Deal, Foreign Policy,
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/16/iran-aint-gonna-sneak-out-under-this-deal-verification-inspections/)//kap
About a decade ago, I started my nuclear policy career at a small British NGO that focuses on verification. My career choice turned out to be a mixed blessing for my social
life. Saying that I worked on nuclear weapons was a great icebreaker at parties, but the ensuing conversations would go downhill rapidly after I mentioned the “V” word.
For reasons inexplicable to me back then, my fellow partygoers just weren’t that interested in finding out how to determine whether states are abiding by their nuclear treaty
commitments.
Over the next few months, I expect to have many conversations with officials, analysts, journalists about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — better known as the
JCPOA or the Iran deal. These conversations will be quite different from those at London parties 10 years ago; today, all my interlocutors will profess a deep and profound
belief in the importance of verification. But, when I start to dig into the details of how the International Atomic Energy Agency will assess Iranian compliance, I’ll see that
glazed look again …
Nonetheless, where verification is concerned, the details do matter, and we really should
be debating the finer points of the Iran deal’s
verification provisions. (See: Annex I, Sections L, M, N, O, P, Q, and R — yes, it’s that detailed.) In assessing whether these arrangements are “good enough,”
the best place to start is with the following question: If Iran decided to cheat, how would it go about doing so?
Iran’s leadership would have three options, and in deciding between them, it would presumably choose the pathway that
maximized its chances of success.
First, Iran could overtly renounce all its nonproliferation commitments, chuck out international inspectors, and build the bomb loudly
and proudly. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty contains a clause that allows states to withdraw under “extraordinary” circumstances, and even though the JCPOA
doesn’t have any such provision, there can be no certainty that Iran won’t abrogate it anyway. No verification system can prevent this scenario, but
what almost
certainly can deter it is the threat of American weaponry hitting Iran before Ayatollah Ali Khamenei can say,
“Death to.”
The second, more
likely scenario would be for Iran to use its declared nuclear materials and facilities for bombbuilding: the much-discussed “breakout scenario.” Many of the Iran deal’s limits are intended to make breakout much more time-consuming than it would currently be
— and that’s a good thing. Ultimately, however, breakout still isn’t all that likely. Declared facilities are subject to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring.
As a result, Iran understands it
would almost certainly be caught quickly if it attempted breakout.
Iran’s third option would be to build a secret parallel nuclear program dedicated to military purposes — sneak-out.
Detecting small clandestine enrichment plants is difficult, and Tehran might view sneak-out as its most
attractive option. Indeed, Iran has tried to sneak out before. Repeatedly. It failed to declare three out of the four facilities in which it has enriched uranium (the
Kalaye Electric Company, the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant near Qom, and the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz) in accordance with IAEA rules.
“Anytime,
anywhere” access is often advocated as the solution to detecting secret facilities — in fact, U.S. Secretary of
Energy Ernest Moniz, an MIT physicist and one of the U.S. negotiators, said back in April that the United States expected it. The Iran deal doesn’t provide
for it, however, as critics, including Sen. Tom Cotton, have noted (rather gleefully, at that).
So, what
access provisions does the deal contain?
It does allow the IAEA to go anywhere — including military sites — if there is evidence of undeclared
facilities hosting nuclear activities. But, if Iran declined to grant access, a complicated dispute-resolution negotiation process would ensue under which
Iran would have to negotiate first with the IAEA and then with the Joint Commission created to oversee implementation of the deal. This process could take up to 24 days.
(On day 25, if Iran still refused access, it would be in noncompliance with the agreement, and sanctions could be reintroduced.)
Fortunately for the JCPOA, the refrain of an “anytime, anywhere” access may make for a great sound bite, but its utility is overstated by Cotton and other critics of the
agreement. An
access delay — even one of 24 days — wouldn’t make any material difference to the
IAEA’s ability to detect undeclared nuclear activities.
When IAEA inspectors search for undeclared nuclear activities, they look for
tiny traces of nuclear material on surfaces. Fortunately for them,
nuclear material lingers. And, modern detection technology is so amazingly effective that minuscule traces of
nuclear material can be detected years after nuclear activities took place. Countries have tried to sanitize facilities completely
to remove every last trace of nuclear material. Iran did so at the Kalaye Electric Company after its secret nuclear program was revealed in 2002. Syria tried the same thing in
2007 after Israel bombed its plutonium-production reactor at al-Kibar. In both cases, the IAEA still managed to detect nuclear material. Those findings were critical to
persuading the organization’s governing body to make a formal finding of noncompliance against both Iran and Syria.
Perhaps Iran has learned from its past mistakes and could do a better job of cleaning up nuclear material in the future and keeping its program secret. But, what’s clear is
that perfect cleanup — if it were possible — would take many months. After
just 24 days, the IAEA would have little difficulty
detecting the residue from undeclared nuclear activities.
So, here’s the bottom line: The
Iran deal doesn’t provide for anytime, anywhere access, but it does facilitate timely
access anywhere — and that’s what needed for effective verification.
But wait, as they say on QVC, there’s more!
Not only is anytime, anywhere access not necessary, but it’s also not sufficient. In other words, its inclusion might have placated (a few) critics, but it would not be enough,
by itself, for effective verification. After all, it would be physically impossible for the IAEA to inspect every building where Iran could conceivably be hiding clandestine
nuclear activities.
What the IAEA actually needs is some preliminary evidence about where a secret nuclear facility might be lurking. The much-discussed but little-understood Additional
Protocol was developed precisely for that purpose, and the JCPOA obliges Iran to accept it, first voluntarily and subsequently on a legally binding basis. But, the JCPOA
goes beyond the Additional Protocol in two innovative and important ways.
First, IAEA monitoring will be extended to declared yellowcake (the precursor material to the feedstock for enrichment) and to declared centrifuge components. This
measure will deter Iran from diverting this material and equipment to a secret
centrifuge components secretly instead — but doing so would create more opportunities for detection.
program. Iran could, of course, try to acquire yellowcake or
Second, the
deal also creates a “Procurement Working Group” to oversee the import of all equipment and material that either is
used or could be used for nuclear purposes. The intelligence communities of the United States and its friends spend considerable resources monitoring
Iranian imports. If they discover that Iran has obtained any items that should have been declared but weren’t, they will have acquired clear evidence of secret nuclear
activities in Iran. They could hand this evidence to the IAEA, which could conduct inspections to investigate further.
All in all, therefore, the JCPOA provides for some impressive verification provisions to guard against sneak-out. That said, no one should be under any illusions.
Detecting small, undeclared centrifuge plants is difficult, and there is no guarantee of success. But, perfection is not the
right metric against which to assess a nonproliferation agreement. The real question is whether sneakout is more likely with a deal or without one. And here the answer is clear: Sneak-out would be much more likely without a deal, because the
IAEA’s powers to detect clandestine facilities would be much more limited.
I realize, of course, that all this talk of timely access, yellowcake monitoring, and procurement working groups isn’t exactly headline-grabbing (though, fortunately, since I’m
now happily married, I have ceased trying to use them in chat-up lines). But, ultimately, it’s complex technical considerations that determine whether the JCPOA’s
verification regime will prove effective. And, in the final analysis, the
JCPOA does significantly enhance the ability of the IAEA to
guard against sneak-out, the most likely pathway for Iran to acquire the Bomb. That’s not the only metric for assessing the deal
— but it is a bloody important one.
AT: Deal bad – Prolif
Deal doesn’t lead to proliferation – no incentive, NPT, 123 agreement, and the US
nuclear umbrella
Indyk 6/11/15 - executive vice-president of the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C., and a former US ambassador to Israel. (Martin, “Why deal with
Iran could be good for the Middle East”, Khaleej Times, June 11, 2015, http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display1.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2015/June/opinion_June20.xml&section=opinion//DM)
In the coming months, Congress
is likely to have to make a choice: either endorse an agreement that removes
sanctions but should ensure a nuclear weapons-free Iran for at least ten-to-fifteen years; or reject the
agreement, which would leave Iran three months from a nuclear weapon under eroding sanctions. In making that
choice, Congress will need to take into account that the Iranian nuclear deal will have profound ripple effects across the troubled Middle East region. The nuclear agreement
was never intended to deal with the likely consequences of the sanctions relief—namely a monetary windfall for the government in Tehran. There is every reason to believe
that at least some of this windfall will enhance the capacity of problematic Iranian forces such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and problematic proxies
like Hezbollah, the Assad regime and Shia militias in Iraq. But the
possible regional implications of the deal are not sufficiently
negative to justify opposing it. Indeed, given the turmoil now engulfing the Middle East, ensuring a nuclear weapons-free Iran
for at least a decade—and tight monitoring of its nuclear programme for much longer than that—will help
remove a primary source of tension and may foster greater cohesion in dealing with the other sources of
conflict and instability there. In the end, the agreement buys a breathing space of at least 10 years. That’s worth having
as long as the inspection, monitoring and snap-back provisions are credible and the time is used effectively to
contain and roll-back Iran’s nefarious hegemonic ambitions. Moreover, whatever its other negative implications, the deal is not
likely to trigger a nuclear arms race. It is unlikely that Saudi Arabia will actually embark on building an enrichment capability with its requirements
for a significant scientific establishment. For 30 years, while Iran developed its ambitious nuclear programme unconstrained,
its Saudi arch-rival did not feel any need to do the same. Why would it do so now when serious constraints
will be placed on Iran’s nuclear programme? Egypt and Jordan are certainly talking about starting nuclear programmes, but they are
both signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. All three Arab states would have to submit to the same
intrusive inspections that Iran has accepted if they are to get the nuclear cooperation they will need. The UAE has signed a 123
agreement, in which it commits never to acquire enrichment capacity. And Turkey, as a Nato ally, already
enjoys the cover of an American nuclear umbrella under Article 5 of the Treaty.
Reject their evidence – its hyperbolic media garbage
Cirincione 7/6/15 - President of the Ploughshares Fund, a public grant-making foundation focused on nuclear weapons policy and conflict resolution.
(Joseph, “Overwhelming Expert Consensus Favors Agreement with Iran”, Payvand, July 6, 2015, http://www.payvand.com/news/15/jul/1034.html//DM)
Media Blind Spot The media rarely portrays this expert consensus in the coverage of the Iran negotiations. This
is not to say that the nuclear policy experts are uniform in their views. There are nuances and shades of agreement. And several genuine non-proliferation experts have
strong, principled disagreements with the proposed Iran deal. Some outright oppose it. They,
however, represent a minority faction in
the field. The overwhelming majority of experts favor the deal. The media portrayal of expert opinion is
driven partially by the custom to “balance” expert views in stories, so that pro and con are evenly
represented-even if this gives a false depiction of the overall expert opinion. It is also driven by the desire
to make news. Conflict grabs attention; agreement is boring. “If it bleeds, it leads” guides not just the local nightly news but often
the front page of The New York Times. Some reporters, for instance, used a recent letter from a bipartisan group of experts to
generate headlines that former top officials of the Obama administration were condemning the Iran deal.
This, even though several of these former officials, including Bob Einhorn, Gary Samore, and Gen. James
Cartwright, had already signed letters in support of the agreement. Einhorn felt compelled to write a rebuttal of this media
misrepresentation, explaining that the signers, including several former Republican security officials such as Bush national security advisor Stephen Hadley, were not
challenging the administration’s negotiating positions or asking them to adopt new and more demanding postures. Rather, he wrote, The significance of the statement is that
this diverse, bipartisan group was able to come together on a number of reasonable and achievable recommendations for concluding an agreement that would serve U.S.
interests and the interests of U.S. friends in the Middle East. Unlike some recommendations made by other groups and individuals, these contained no “poison pills”
designed to complicate or even sabotage the negotiations.
Their claims are highly politicized – the groups who want to kill the deal are
exceptionally well funded and relentless
Cirincione 7/6/15 - President of the Ploughshares Fund, a public grant-making foundation focused on nuclear weapons policy and conflict resolution.
(Joseph, “Overwhelming Expert Consensus Favors Agreement with Iran”, Payvand, July 6, 2015, http://www.payvand.com/news/15/jul/1034.html//DM)
Aggressive Tactics from Deal Foes
The mistaken impression of where the experts stand also stems from the aggressive tactics of the opposition
forces. Though light on nuclear policy experts, the groups working to kill a deal with Iran are exceptionally well funded,
heavily staffed, and relentless in their bombardment of the media and the Congress with “fact sheets,”
reports, letters, visits, and tweets. As several Senate staffers told me recently, “We feel under siege.” With a few exceptions, pro-deal
experts are, to put it politely, more restrained in offering their opinion. Nor do liberals have the massive
propaganda machine that conservatives enjoy. The distorted impression that nuclear policy experts are evenly divided or that most are critical of
the deal also stems from the imbalance of witnesses on congressional panels. It is difficult to find an expert in favor of the Iran agreement
on any witness list in the Republican-controlled Congress. In the past 18 months, Congress has staged 21 public
hearings on the Iran agreement, calling 41 witnesses. Of these, four have been witnesses from the administration
while 36 came from non-governmental organizations. Of the outside witnesses, an overwhelming 28 were
clear critics of the Iran agreement and only 7 could be called supportive. That is a ratio of four to one, critics to supporters.
Moreover, several of the most critical witnesses testified multiple times, appearing in three, four, or even six
different hearings. None of the supportive non-government witnesses testified more than once. This totals an
astonishing 45 appearances from deal critics versus seven appearances from deal supporters outside the government. When a supportive witness is
allowed to testify, he or she is usually outnumbered two to one at the witness table. They invariably speak last
and are asked only a few questions. These hearings generate considerable media coverage, and the organizations
involved often trumpet their testimonies in press releases, email blasts, and social media. Any reporter covering such hearings is left with a
stacked deck of negative testimony, buttressed by the torrents of criticism that pour forth from the members
themselves. These show hearings do not serve the congressional interest. During the more than nine years that I served on congressional staff, we always sought to
present members with a healthy debate. This made for a more informed and more interesting hearing. But these staged Iran productions have
likely left members with the view that the large majority of experts are skeptical of an agreement or
oppose it outright. This could not be further from the truth.
Iran deal cuts off Iran’s pathway to a bomb
Kimball 6/25/15 - Executive Director Arms Control Association Washington. (Daryl, “Benefits of a Nuclear Deal With Iran”, The New York Times, June
26, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/opinion/benefits-of-a-nuclear-deal-with-iran.html//DM)
Alan J. Kuperman
makes a number of flawed assumptions in asserting that the Iran nuclear deal would extend
Iran’s “breakout time” by only one month. A wide range of scientific experts, along with the technical
teams of the Western governments, agree that a deal would increase the time it would take Iran to
amass enough bomb-grade uranium for one bomb from the current two to three months to at least
12 months. The agreement will require Iran to disconnect and remove some 14,000 centrifuges and put them under the seal of the International Atomic Energy
Agency. Only 5,060 first-generation machines would be allowed to enrich uranium to low levels. Mr. Kuperman
assumes that Iran could immediately reassemble, reinstall and recalibrate the excess centrifuges — but it
would take many months, if not years, to achieve such a feat. And inspectors would detect any such activity
within days. Mr. Kuperman also assumes that the agreement would allow Iran to keep large amounts of its
uranium stockpile in solid form. But under the agreement, Iran must verifiably reduce its current stockpile of
8,700 kilograms of low-enriched uranium gas to no more than 300 kilograms, in any form. The Iran deal should be
judged based on the facts. And the facts are clear: This deal would verifiably cut off Iran’s pathways to a bomb.
Affirmative
Passage Inevitable
Republicans will inevitably fall in line --- they don’t want to be blamed for
undermining the deal
Sargent 7/15 – Washington Post Columnist (Greg, “Morning Plum: Do Republicans really want to block the Iran deal in Congress?” the Washington Post,
7/15/15, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/15/morning-plum-do-republicans-really-want-to-block-the-iran-deal-in-congress/, accessed
7/19/15)//RZ
Republicans are very, very confident that they have the political advantage in the coming battle in Congress over the historic Iran deal announced yesterday. Multiple news
reports today tell us that Republicans are gearing up their “attack plan,” and those reports are overflowing with GOP bravado.
For instance, the Hill tells us that Republicans may hold a preliminary vote to approve the Iran deal, on the theory that this will divide Democrats, since some of them will
see this as a “tough vote.”
But here’s the question: Once
all the procedural smoke clears, do Republicans really want an endgame in which they
succeeded in blocking the deal? Do they actually want to scuttle it?
Perhaps many of them genuinely do want that. But here’s
a prediction: as this battle develops, some Republicans may
privately conclude that it would be better for them politically if they fail to stop it. The Iran debate may
come to resemble the one over the anti-Obamacare lawsuit that also recently fell short.
Congressional Republicans and GOP presidential candidates are predicting dire consequences if the Iran deal goes forward .
But what’s missing from the
discussion is that if Congress does somehow block the deal, that could precipitate a whole different set of
consequences. Former Obama administration official Dennis Ross spells out those consequences this way:
Opponents need to explain what happens if the rest of the world accepts this deal, Iran says it is ready to implement it — and
Congress blocks it. Will the European Union, which explicitly commits in the agreement to lift sanctions once Iran has fulfilled its main nuclear responsibilities,
not do so because Congress says no? Can sanctions really be sustained in these circumstances, particularly if the Iranians don’t increase their enrichment and say they will
observe the deal? Could
only two
we be faced with a world in which the sanctions regime collapses, Iran gets its windfall and is
months from breakout, and there is little on-ground visibility into its program?
Some Congressional
Republicans are also quietly mulling another possibility: What if our allies blame them for
tanking the deal they support? The New York Times points out that GOP repudiation of the deal “was a blow not only to
Mr. Obama but also to conservative leaders the party usually backs, Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain and
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany.” And note this telling moment from GOP Senator Bob Corker:
“In the next couple of months, the international community is going to be focused on Congress. I got that,” Mr. Corker said in an interview. “I understand the position
we’re in.”
To be clear, it would be folly to predict with certainty how the politics of this will play out. Many Democrats may well decide it’s hard for them to back the deal. And
Republicans may be able to use procedural votes to inflict some damage on them.
But even so, Republicans could also conclude that their best outcome is to inflict that damage in the short term
while also failing to block the deal in the end. Just as Republicans realized that “winning” the lawsuit against
Obamacare could force them to own the consequences of their “victory,” and increase pressure them to specify
concrete alternative courses of action, they may conclude it’s a good thing that the Congressional oversight
mechanism negotiated by Senator Corker (which they supported, by the way) makes it so hard for them to “win” by
scuttling the Iran deal.
Uniqueness overwhelms the link – the political dynamic and vote counts make a veto
proof majority highly unlikely.
Prokop 7/14 – political reporter (Andrew, “How Congress could kill the Iran deal, and why it probably won't”, 7/14/15, Vox,
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/14/8959807/iran-deal-congress, accessed 7/19/15)//RZ
The new law says that once the administration submits this deal to Congress,
Obama can't waive sanctions on Iran for 60 days so
Congress can have time to review the agreement.
However, the
burden is then on Congress to disapprove the deal. If Congress takes no action, the lifting of sanctions will go into effect.
Furthermore, a mere majority vote to kill the deal isn't enough. To go into effect and block
Obama from lifting the sanctions permanently,
Congress's resolution of disapproval would have to overcome Obama's promised veto. For that, the GOP would need twothirds of both the House and Senate — 290 votes in the lower chamber, plus 67 in the upper one.
In the House, there are currently 246 sitting Republicans — so if every one of them opposed the deal, the
remaining 44 votes would have to come from Democrats. The vacant seat of former Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) will be filled in a
September 10 special election, and Republican Darin LaHood is expected to win it. So if he's seated in time for the vote, only 43 Democrats would need to disapprove the
deal.
In addition to that, the
meaning that 13
Senate would have to vote to override a veto too. In the Senate, there are 54 sitting Republicans,
Democrats would have to join them.
The politics of the Iran deal on the Hill
What this means in practice, though, is that a
vote will take place. And that will be an uncomfortable vote for many
Democrats. Some may be genuinely skeptical of the deal, and others may be caught between their desire to support
the president and their desire to have good relations with hawkish pro-Israel groups like AIPAC (which released a "deeply
concerned" statement about the deal Tuesday morning).
But AIPAC has had less clout among Democrats recently. Last year, the Daily Beast's Eli Lake reported on how, in somewhat of a
precursor to this fight, AIPAC "helped turn what was a bipartisan effort to keep Iran in check into just another
political squabble," when its effort to get Congress to further toughen sanctions on the country failed.
Plus, in
addition to President Obama, Hillary Clinton — one of the more hawkish leaders in the party — is praising
the deal. That means that Democrats who defect would be going against both the current president and his
potential successor.
Won’t Pass
Won’t pass—both GOP and Dems fight the deal
Garland 7/14, staff writer at The Hill, (Eric, 7/14/15, Menendez: Iran deal 'preserves' nuclear program instead of ending it, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/247819-menendez-iran-deal-only-preserves-nuclear-program)//kap
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) on Tuesday said
the multinational deal with Iran preserves Tehran's nuclear ambitions
instead of ending them.
"The
deal ultimately legitimizes Iran as a threshold nuclear state," Menendez, who stepped down as the top Democrat on the Foreign
"The deal doesn't end Iran's nuclear program,
it preserves it."
Relations Committee earlier this year amid corruption charges, said on MSNBC's "The Rundown."
The New Jersey senator, a long-time critic of the negotiations, refuted President Obama's claim that the deal allows for 24/7 access
to inspect any site believed to be violating the deal.
Host Jose-Diaz Balart asked Menendez if lifting United Nations Security Council sanctions, in addition to removing ballistic missile restrictions in eight years or sooner, is
too beneficial for Iran.
"The reality is, there's a reason why Iran wants that," Menendez said. "It wants
to continue to deploy its terrorism throughout the
region, as it is presently doing, even in desperate economic straights."
The Democrat also criticized Obama for not explicitly saying the U.S. will not allow Iran to make a nuclear
weapon.
a decade from now, when most of the elements of this program are over, Iran is going to be able to move forward," he said. "It has a significant part of
its infrastructure in place, it can reassemble that and off we go."
"In
Republican members of Congress have already signaled they will try to kill the deal, with Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)
echoing Menendez's comments that the deal isn't tough enough on Iran.
"The American people are going to repudiate this deal, and I
believe Congress will kill the deal," Cotton said earlier on MSNBC.
Legislation passed in May states that Congress has 60 days to review the deal, and decide whether to accept or reject it.
Senate vote won’t occur for a few more months—allows for mobilization against
Obama
Carney 7/14, staff writer at The Hill, Jordain, 7/14/15, Senate Iran vote unlikely until after August recess, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/flooraction/senate/247869-senate-iran-vote-unlikely-until-after-august-recess)//kap
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Tuesday that the
Senate would likely vote after the August recess on the Iran nuclear
deal.
"Likely, what we'll do is vote
on this when we return from recess," Corker told reporters.
That would push any vote in the Senate until at least Sept. 8, when Congress returns to Washington after a monthlong break.
The Tennessee Republican said that the Foreign Relations Committee, which he chairs, would start also holding hearings “in the next two or three weeks.”
Corker said that lawmakers
are still waiting for the administration hand over classified portions and certifications of the
agreement, adding that "we expect to receive those materials over the next several days."
Corker suggested that he would withhold final judgement on the deal until he has had time to review it, but added that " the
downward trend."
agreement has taken a
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) added that the Armed Services Committee would hold separate hearings, focusing on verifying that Iran is complying with a long-term
agreement.
Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) added that lawmakers
will be briefed by the administration and that those talks will be
“extensive in nature.”
Pushing a Senate vote on the Iran nuclear deal until September would give opponents of the deal
more time to mobilize and pressure Democrats to buck the administration.
But Democrats have brushed
aside questions about if they are concerned about allowing for a 60-day review, compared to the 30-day
review.
“They're
going to need some time to get members of Congress, especially their friends, comfortable with the detailed
inspection regime,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told reporters late last week. “This isn't the Affordable Care Act. There are unlikely to be town halls full of
thousands of people talking about the Iran nuclear negotiations.”
UN review increasing opposition to the deal
Pecquet, 7/19/15 – congressional reporter for Al Monitor (Julian, Kerry begins Iran deal sales push on Capitol Hill, Congressional Pulse, Al Monitor,
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/07/iran-nuclear-congress-kerry-zarif-putin-unsc.html)//JJ
The administration's bid to draw Democrats and the handful of undecided Republicans to its
side is further complicated by the international negotiating partners' intention to ask the UN Security Council to
vote to lift multilateral sanctions, possibly as early as July 20. The gambit has infuriated lawmakers on both sides of
the aisle, with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, threatening to hold up State Department funding and new
ambassadors and House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., saying lawmakers would try
to block the administration from lifting the arms embargo on Iran if the UN votes before Congress get a
chance to review the deal.
“It seems your Administration
intended all along to circumvent this domestic review by moving the
agreement to the UN Security Council before the mandatory 60-day review period ends, thus
adopting an agreement without Congressional consent,” Cruz, a presidential candidate, wrote to President Barack Obama. “That
[US Ambassador to the UN] Samantha Power has already introduced a draft resolution to the Security Council portrays an offensive level of disrespect
for the American people and their elected representatives in Congress.”
Bypassing congress for a UN vote is uniting bipartisan opposition against Obama
Carney 7/18, staff writer at The Hill, (Jordain, 7/18/15, Protests erupt in Congress as UN races toward Iran vote, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/flooraction/senate/248374-protests-erupt-in-congress-as-un-races-toward-iran-vote)//kap
Senate Republicans have found a new target in the war of words with President Obama over Iran: the United Nations.
They argue that the
administration is about to leapfrog Congress by allowing the international body to approve a nuclear pact
that lawmakers have not signed off on, let alone properly reviewed.
The battle is uniting Republicans, from conservative firebrand and presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to GOP leadership and Foreign
Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the chairman of the Senate
Republican Conference, urged the administration to hold off on the U.N.
Security Council vote.
Doing otherwise, Thune said, would show that “the president holds the opinion of the United Nations in higher esteem than the American people.”
The quick move toward the U.N. vote has also angered rank-and-file Republicans, with Sens. David Perdue (R-Ga.) saying
that it makes it seem like the administration “always intended to bypass Congress by moving through the United
Nations.”
Cruz is threatening to block nominees and funding for the State Department unless the administration prevents the U.N. Security Council from voting
on the resolution on the nuclear deal, which could happen as early as Monday.
One of Cruz’s rivals for the GOP nomination, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), also blasted
the administration, suggesting that Obama is taking
the deal to the United Nations first because he knows Congress will ultimately reject the deal.
“It’s a clear sign that he
knows if this deal is reviewed closely by the American people, it will be rejected,” Rubio said. “We
cannot allow America's security to be outsourced to the United Nations.”
The senators have bipartisan support on the other side of the Capitol.
lawmakers would try to
block Obama from lifting an arms embargo if he lets the U.N. vote take place before Congress
approves, or disapproves, the deal.
Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said during an interview with "Lou Dobbs Tonight" that
Rep. Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 House Democrat, is also pushing back against the administration. The Maryland lawmaker said that waiting to take the deal to the United
Nations until after Congress has voted "would be consistent with the intent and substance" of the review legislation.
The administration argues there’s nothing in the Iran deal that requires congressional approval before the international community can act.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Friday said the international body is showing “significant deference” to Congress by postponing implementation of the order
for 90 days. The delay
would allow lawmakers “ample opportunity” to review the deal, Earnest said.
Wendy Sherman, the State Department’s undersecretary for political affairs, suggested to that the administration was under pressure from the other six countries involved in
the talks — the so called P5+1 — to go to the U.N. sooner rather than later.
“It would have been a little difficult when all of the members of the P5+1 wanted to go to the United Nations to get an endorsement of this… for us to say, ‘well excuse
me, the world, you should wait for the United States Congress,’” she told reporters at a State Department briefing in the wake of the deal.
But, the administration’s move is threatening to antagonize Corker, who is among the handful of Senate Republicans who are undecided on the deal.
The influential Tennessee Republican called the decision to take the resolution to the United Nations “an affront to Congress.”
“This is exactly what we were trying to stop,” he said, referring to the legislation lawmakers passed earlier this year forcing the administration to hand over the deal so
Congress could vote on it.
While Republicans
face an uphill battle in overriding Obama's veto, there are plenty of Democrats skeptical of the
deal, potentially putting another hurdle in the administration's path.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the issue reflected one of the “stark differences” between the administration and
Congress.
The Maryland Democrat was crucial to brokering a deal on the review legislation that made the bill more acceptable to the White House.
Now, Cardin and Corker are teaming up to ask the president to hold off on the Security Council vote, suggesting that the move is a contradiction to the president’s pledge
to let Congress and the American people review the deal.
Won’t pass – AIPAC
Lerner 7/17/15 – reporter for Politico (Adam, AIPAC forms new group to oppose Iran deal, Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/aipac-irandeal-citizens-for-a-nuclear-free-iran-120307.html)//JJ
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.
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.
The
“This Iran deal is dangerous for America, for Israel and for the world,” Lieberman, the former Democratic and Independent senator, said in a statement on the group’s site.
“Iran has violated over 20 international agreements, is the number one sponsor of terrorism in the world, and has been working to acquire nuclear weapons for years.
Unfortunately this agreement won’t stop them.”
AIPAC has already come out in opposition to a number of President Barack Obama’s policies, including his
approach to negotiations with Iran and treatment of Israel. In a staff meeting earlier this week the group’s executive
director, Howard Kohr, told staff to cancel their summer vacations as the group plans to ramp up its
lobbying against the deal in coming weeks.
According to the Times’ report, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran will
spend approximately $20 million on its advocacy,
including advertising in 30 to 40 states.
“This will be a sizable
and significant national campaign on the flaws in the Iran deal,” Dorton said.
Obama announced earlier this week that the P 5+1 negotiating nations had settled on final language for a nuclear deal which would dismantle a large majority of Iran’s
nuclear infrastructure, while leaving small portions intact.
In order to scuttle the deal, Republicans in Congress will need to convince enough Democrats to oppose the deal to secure a two-thirds majority vote.
Link / Internal Link Answers
PC Not Key / Fails
PC doesn’t affect Iran – polarization outweighs and Pelosi solves
McManus 7/15/15 – Washington columnist for the Los Angeles Times (Doyle, Why partisan polarization will be Obama's friend on the Iran deal, Los
Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-polarization-obama-iran-20150715-story.html)//JJ
President Obama thinks he can win the fight over his nuclear deal with Iran by
invoking a three-word argument: What’s the alternative?
As I noted in my column today,
Obama has another ace in the hole that is likely to frustrate Republican-led efforts to block
the agreement: partisan polarization.
But
polarization that has produced congressional gridlock and frustrated occasional attempts to strike a fiscal “grand bargain” will be the
president’s ally in the case of Iran.
The same
To block the Iran agreement, Congress must pass a resolution of disapproval — and
Obama has already said he will veto any such bill.
Here’s why:
override the veto, opponents of the deal will need to assemble a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. That’s
always a difficult bar to clear — and it’s even harder when partisan passions are running high.
To
In the Senate, if all 54 Republicans voted to kill the Iran deal, 13 Democrats or independents would need to join them
to reach the 67 needed to override a veto. But so far, only one Democrat, Robert Menendez of New Jersey,
has indicated that he’s likely to vote against the deal — and even he hasn’t made a final decision,
a spokeswoman said Wednesday. Plenty of others, including the incoming Democratic leader, Charles E. Schumer of New York, are on the fence. But at this point, as my
not even clear that opponents of the deal can muster the 60 votes they would need to
bring a resolution of disapproval to the floor.
colleague Lisa Mascaro notes, it’s
In the House, the obstacles are even higher. To override a veto, opponents of the deal would
need at least 44 of the House’s 188 Democrats (assuming all members voted and all 246 Republicans stayed together).
But the
House has been even more polarized than the Senate, mostly because so many members come from
lopsidedly partisan districts.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco has already made it clear that she plans to fight to protect the deal — and Pelosi
has been able
to keep her members in line on key votes.
One more factor may prevent many Democrats from bolting: Hillary Rodham
Clinton. The presidential front-runner announced on Tuesday that she not only
supports the Iran deal, she intends to campaign for it.
means any Democrat who votes against the deal would be going up not only against the
party’s incumbent president, but against the party’s most likely presidential nominee.
That
So while Obama has often bemoaned the partisan polarization that has made bipartisan cooperation impossible, in this case he may be (quietly) grateful for it.
Impact inevitable – elections – AND Obama pc is irrelevant
Bradner 7/19/15 – politics reporter for CNN (Eric, State Dept. sends Iran deal to Congress, CNN Politics, http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/19/politics/johnkerry-iran-deal-congress/)//JJ
Republican presidential candidates have said they'd undo President Barack Obama's Iran deal.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio
said Sunday on "State of the Union" that he'd revoke the national security waiver under which
Obama is implementing the deal, effectively re-instituting U.S. sanctions against Iran.
"We will not use the national security waiver to hold back U.S. sanctions against Iran -- especially not as a result of this flawed deal that he is pursuing," Rubio said.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker told CNN's Dana Bash that he
would rip up the agreement on "Day 1" of his
presidency.
The Obama administration got some help
lobbying for the agreement Sunday from foreign allies who were involved in the
negotiations.
British Prime Minister David Cameron hailed the agreement as a victory in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"The threat of a nuclear-armed Iran -- that is now off the table. I mean, that's a success," Cameron said. "What we've done is make sure the timeline for them possibly
getting a nuclear weapon has gotten longer, not shorter."
But Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the deal's leading critic, questioned whether
Iran can be trusted not to build hidden sites that would make its path to a nuclear bomb
easier in an interview on ABC's "This Week."
He said Iran gets to keep too much of its nuclear infrastructure in the deal.
"The hardliners in Iran are actually going to come out strong because they're getting everything they want," Netanyahu said. "They're getting a pathway down the line, within
a decade or so, to the capacity to be a threshold state with practically zero breakout time to many nuclear bombs, and billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars,
which they'll siphon off to their terror and war machine."
Lobbying is irrelevant– the deal will pass-- political dynamics force democrats will
have little choice but to back the deal
Brown and Mimms 7/14 – Congressional Correspondent and Staff Correspondent (Alex, Sarah, “Democrats Don't Trust Iran. Do They Trust
Obama?”, National Journal, 7/14/15, http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/democrats-don-t-trust-iran-do-they-trust-obama-20150714, accessed 7/19/15)//RZ
While most congressional Democrats played wait-and-see, Obama did have one important ally in the Capitol
on Tuesday morning. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, attending previously scheduled meetings with Democrats in both
chambers, gave the plan her backing. "I think we have to look at this seriously, evaluate it carefully, but I believe based on what I know now,
this is an important step," she told reporters after the meeting. Obama called Clinton late Monday night to brief her on the deal.
And Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
the vice chairwoman of the powerful Intelligence Committee, said in a statement that
she will support the deal. "This is a strong agreement that meets our national security needs and I believe will stand the test of time. I stand behind the U.S.
negotiating team and will support this agreement in the Senate," Feinstein said.
House Democrats inside a meeting with Clinton on Tuesday morning said the former secretary of State's
support was far from tepid. "She endorsed it full-throated," Rep. Gerald Connolly said. "She was not equivocal at all in
her support of the agreement as she understands it."
Clinton's stance on the issue, Israel said, carries a lot of weight, second only to Obama. "There's no question
that her opinion is critically important, profoundly important," he said.
For now, though, Clinton's support does not have many Democrats rushing to back the deal. "I come to this with a great deal of distrust for the Iranian government, and as
[Clinton] said, an existential threat that it poses not only to the state of Israel, but to all of our friends in the region and to our friends in Europe and the United States as
well," said Rep. Joseph Crowley, vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "[I'm]
certainly hoping that the agreement is something I
can support if it puts out of reach of the Iranian people to create nuclear weapons."
House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Eliot Engel added: "I remain uncomfortable with the fact that we have spent so much time negotiating with a country
that opposes our interests in so many ways across the region." Engel expressed concern that lifting sanctions on Iran could allow it to further destabilize the region.
Sen. Christopher Coons,
another Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was also highly skeptical Tuesday, but
emphasized that he and his colleagues have a lot of reading and research left to do before making any final
decision.
"Iran has certainly earned our distrust. So I begin the process of reading and reviewing this historic agreement with a position of suspicion and distrust of Iran and their
intentions going forward," Coons said. "And as a result, I am more-than-ever concerned that we have a strong and durable verification and inspection regime, that we have
sanctions that can snap back significantly and meaningfully if—or I should say when—Iran cheats on this deal."
Other high-profile Democrats were in no hurry to take a position. "[A]ny deal must ensure that Iran can never achieve their goal of
developing a nuclear weapon," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, in a statement. "As I have said from the beginning, no
deal is better than a bad deal, particularly given Iran's horrific track record of deception and continued facilitation of terrorism against the United States and our allies
worldwide."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi
issued a statement commending the White House's efforts to find a diplomatic
solution, but shied away from pronouncing the deal a favorable one. "Congress will closely review the details
of this agreement," she said.
Similarly, Caucus Chair Xavier Becerra said members
are waiting to see the text. "We should be prepared to read it all, to
make sure that what we're reading is what we're hearing, so that we can have confidence of moving forward."
Ultimately, though, some think Democrats
will have little choice but to back the deal. "[Vice President Joe] Biden's coming
over tomorrow to sway us in one direction," Rep. Brad Sherman said. "It will be hard to sway us in the other
direction, because you've got Obama and Hillary and Democratic activists around the country all on
one side. ... The two problems in overriding a veto are every Democratic institution is saying not to and
there's no crisp answer to 'and then what?' "
While leadership has mostly avoided weighing in, the
plan did garner endorsements from a few progressives Tuesday. Sen. Bernie
Sanders, a presidential candidate, called the deal a "victory for diplomacy over saber rattling." Rep. Barbara Lee,
one of the most outspoken anti-war members of Congress, hailed it as well. "Today's announced deal with Iran, if fully
implemented, will prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon while ensuring greater stability in the Middle East," she said.
Obama’s not key – Pelosi is pushing the deal and she can afford to lose 42
democrats.
Ferrechio 7/16 – Chief Congressional Correspondent for the Washington Examiner (Susan, “Pelosi pushing Democrats to back nuclear deal”, 7/16/15,
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pelosi-pushing-democrats-to-back-nuclear-deal/article/2568398?custom_click=rss, accessed 7/19/15)//RZ
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she is working to convince rank-and-file House Democrats
to approve the nuclear deal with Iran, which she fully supports.
"Yes, yes," Pelosi
said when asked whether she'll lobby her undecided caucus to back the plan. "I'm so proud of this. I'm
already making sure, not lobbying but making sure, people have the answers to the questions they have. I made clear to
them my own standing on this issue and why I think this is a good agreement. It's pretty exciting."
Pelosi started the briefing by proudly holding up the deal. "I've closely examined this document, and it will have my strong support," she said.
Pelosi rejected criticisms that the agreement should have included a deal to free four Americans currently imprisoned by the Iranian government. Instead,
she said the accord itself will benefit the prisoners.
"No, not, it would have been good, but no," Pelosi said, when asked about including the hostages as part of the agreement.
"This is a nuclear deal," Pelosi added. "This is a nuclear agreement. Since we have a nuclear negotiation and a nuclear agreement, a much brighter light is going to shine on
the prisoners of conscience in Iran. This will shine a very bright light. I'm very optimistic."
Democrats in both chambers have expressed mostly tepid support for the deal, with some lawmakers far more
skeptical than others that the agreement goes far enough to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon.
Pelosi acknowledged "some of our members are in different places," and have questions about the deal, but
she plans to work to convince them to vote in favor of it when it comes to the House floor after a 60-day
review period. She said Democrats are in the "education phase" of considering the agreement.
The White House has stepped up efforts to sell the deal to Congress. Vice
President Joe Biden met with Democrats in the House on
Wednesday and is headed to the Senate today.
Pelosi called Biden's talk to Democrats "spectacular."
The GOP is expected to push for a
disapproval resolution, which is expected to pass, because it will only need a simple majority.
House Republicans will have the option of passing a resolution approving the deal, or disapproving the deal.
If that resolution can pass the Senate, it would then be vetoed by President Obama, which would send it back to
both chambers. To override that veto, a two-thirds vote would be needed in the House and Senate.
For Pelosi, that means she needs to convince 146 Democrats to vote against the override. That means she could
lose up to 42 Democrats and still ensure the safety of the Iran deal in the House.
Schumer Key
Schumer is the deciding vote --- his support will prevent a veto override
Bolton 7/14 – Senior Reporter The Hill (Alexander, “GOP crafts Iran deal attack plan”, The Hill, 7/14/15, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/247957-gopcrafts-attack-plan-on-iran-deal, accessed 7/19/15)//RZ
“All options are on the table,” said a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations panel who requested anonymity. “I wouldn’t take anything off.”
Democrats have the bully pulpit, and the Obama
administration has initiated a huge campaign to sway the public.
Republicans will likely use the Iran votes as ammunition on the campaign trail in 2016. But
New York Sen. Charles Schumer, the third-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, is emerging as
a critical vote.
Senate Republicans need to hold their ranks and persuade 13 Democrats to vote with them to override President
Obama’s threatened veto of a resolution of disapproval.
“If
Schumer comes out and says, ‘I looked at the bill and studied its details and think it’s a good deal and will stop Iran from
veto,” said Noah Pollak, executive director of the Emergency
getting weapons,’ there will be zero hope of overriding an Obama
Committee for Israel, which funded a six-figure Web campaign targeting Schumer earlier this year.
“If
Schumer says this doesn’t do it, it lifts the arms embargo and doesn’t have anytime, anywhere inspections,
then we have a fight on our hands. He’s a linchpin or a bellwether,” he added.
Schumer and other Senate Democrats held off on judging the deal Tuesday.
“I
intend to go through this agreement with a fine-tooth comb, speak with administration officials, and hear
from experts on all sides,” Schumer said in a statement. “Supporting or opposing this agreement is not a decision to
be made lightly, and I plan to carefully study the agreement before making an informed decision.”
Colleagues say Schumer appears genuinely torn.
“He’s very sober. He said, ‘I’m going
Democratic colleague speaking on background.
to make a decision on this based on what’s best for the country,’ ” said a
Rep. Eliot Engel (N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a leading Iran critic, said the deal is “deeply troubling.”
Impact Answers
No Impact to Deal Failure
No war from deal failure – their ev is all rhetoric
Pollak 7/17/15 – reporter for The Weekly Standard (Noah, Obama's Claim of War If Congress Rejects Iran Deal Doesn't Pass Laugh Test, The Weekly
Standard, https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-claim-war-if-congress-rejects-iran-deal-doesnt-pass-laugh-test_992618.html)//JJ
The Obama administration's latest argument for the Iran deal -- support it, or there will be
war -- is shameful. It is borderline political blackmail. It reveals an administration desperate to avoid
debating the deal on its merits, preferring instead to intimidate its critics into acquiescence by accusing them of being warmongers.
What should be said in response? Three things:
1. Anyone who claims war will break out if the deal is rejected
must explain why the United States and its allies are
powerless to avoid it. One scenario is that Iran decides to race to a bomb, forcing U.S. or Israeli airstrikes on its nuclear facilities. But President
Obama has already all but ruled out airstrikes, claiming last month that there is no military solution to the
problem -- and nobody believes that this president would actually take military action against a
country he has spent his entire presidency courting in the hope of vindicating his belief that rogue states
can be reformed through diplomatic outreach. The president has also ruled out an obvious non-military way
that the West could respond to an Iranian escalation of its program, which is new sanctions and embargoes that cripple Iran's
economy and force the regime to choose between its survival or domestic stability and the
nuclear program. Yet Obama and Kerry have said explicitly that additional sanctions will not force an Iranian capitulation. Thus, by ruling out
both military action and new sanctions, the administration has constructed a preferred reality
-- a false one -- in which the only option is supporting the deal. Step out of this false reality, and there are
several options for avoiding war: A military threat that is actually credible; increased sanctions;
embargoes; sabotage; helping allies and partners roll back Iranian expansion in Syria, Yemen,
Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza; and a tougher negotiation that achieves, if it's possible, a genuinely good deal.
2. Over the past two years, Obama administration officials, including the president and the secretary of state, have repeated on dozens of occasions the following claim: "No
deal is better than a bad deal." This concise go-to talking point was meant to reassure Americans that the president was not negotiating out of desperation, because we had
options other than a bad deal. It meant that the alternative to a bad deal is not war, but maintaining pressure on Iran through sanctions, political isolation, and other
measures. There was never a war corollary. Yet now, suddenly there is: support the deal or there will be war. If this new talking point is actually true, it means that the
original talking point was false, and what the administration should have told the American people is that a bad deal is better than no deal, because no deal will cause a war.
As it turns out, neither the past nor the present talking point is true -- and so targets of Obama's war threats may wish to remind the president that here, he has a serious
credibility problem.
a contrivance of an administration that is throwing
every threat it can think of into its effort to bludgeon Congress into approving a bad deal. There are
a half-dozen U.N. Security Council resolutions and numerous U.S. and EU laws that comprise the
sanctions regime, and there is no clause written into any of them stipulating that congressional
rejection of a deal rescinds the sanctions regime. President Obama has been ruthless and singleminded in pursuing the things that
3. The claim that the sanctions regime would not survive the rejection of the deal is
he wants -- Obamacare, executive action on immigration, Palestinian statehood, Iran negotiations, etc. Yet we are now to believe that when it comes to enforcing sanctions,
the President of the United States is suddenly transformed into a powerless bystander compelled to accept the violation of dozens of laws with impunity?
This doesn't pass the laugh test -- and neither does the administration's larger threat that Congress must
approve its terrible deal lest it spark a war.
No impact to deal failure –
Satloff 7/16/15 – executive director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (Robert, If the Iran Deal Fails…, Politico,
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/if-the-iran-deal-fails-120247.html#.Vav6CPl81rk)//JJ
I have not yet decided whether the costs of the Iran nuclear agreement are worth its advantages. But I have reached one conclusion–President
Obama’s
argument that “the alternative to this agreement is war” is wrong.
Let us assume that Congress overrides the president’s veto of a resolution disapproving the deal. What happens the day after?
The president said that the congressional vote not only vitiates the agreement but destroys all international constraints on Iran’s nuclear program, after which the Iranians
will race toward a bomb. That development, so this argument goes, would launch a regional nuclear arms race and likely trigger either American or Israeli military action to
stop Iran’s march toward a bomb. With Iran likely to respond in either case by launching thousands of Hezbollah missiles into Israel,
But
the result is war.
is that really the most likely chain of events? No.
Faced with what would be a revolt in his own party, let alone near-universal Republican opposition, the president might have second thoughts about the Vienna deal. If he
this could compel him to go back to the bargaining table–first with his P5+1
partners and then with Iran—to secure certain improvements.
still wanted to salvage a nuclear agreement,
These could include, for example, less time for Iran to delay inspections; a longer period for the maintenance of the arms embargo; or clear and agreed consequences spelled
out for various types of Iranian violations. In other words,
a vote for disapproval may just force the president to seek
the proverbial “better deal.”
Remember precisely
what Congress will be voting on–to constrain the President’s ability to waive sanctions on
Iran. That’s all. He will still have the prerogatives of his office to seek execution of the deal in
But let’s say that the president holds firm to the current text, despite ignominious defeat on his flagship foreign policy achievement.
other ways.
In that case, I believe the likely scenario would be as follows:
The administration has said it will seek U.N. Security Council endorsement of the Vienna accord in the coming days. That means
the agreement will be
enshrined in international law well before Congress acts, though that Security Council resolution will be timed so as not to take
effect until after Congress votes on the deal.
let’s say Congress votes to override the president’s veto. Then, a determined president
will still go to the annual convening of the U.N. General Assembly and announce that he
will do everything in his power to execute the agreement. If Congress won’t let him waive
sanctions, then–as he did with deportations of certain illegal aliens–he will order the State and Treasury Departments to
focus their enforcement powers elsewhere. Congress will fume; a legal battle looms.
Then, in early September,
even at that point, the United States is still not in violation of the agreement. According to the deal, the
next step is that Iran has to implement its nuclear restrictions–mothballing centrifuges, redesigning the Arak plutonium
reactor, etc.–to the satisfaction of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Most experts estimate that will take at least six
But
months. Only after the IAEA certifies that Iran has met its requirements are the P5+1 countries and the United Nations required to implement their commitments to
terminate (or, in America’s case, suspend) sanctions.
even if Congress denies the president waiver authority on Iran sanctions in September, he
wouldn’t begin to use that authority until next spring, at the earliest. At that point, when he tries to
make an end-run around Congress, Messrs. Boehner and McConnell can be expected to take
their case to court. Eventually, the Supreme Court will decide. Perhaps the president will still
be in office; perhaps he won’t.
In other words,
What does Iran do during this domestic political contest here in the United States? Does it chuck its enormous diplomatic achievements in Vienna for a mad dash toward a
bomb? Highly unlikely. My hunch is that Iran will seek to exploit our internal squabbles to isolate America from its own negotiating partners.
“We are very sorry to see small-minds in Congress try to snuff out hopes for peace and mutual security,” savvy Iranian diplomats will say. “But we will not let them.
Therefore, we will continue to abide by the terms of the agreement.” That’s the best way for Iran to make sure that the European Union and the United Nations terminate
their sanctions and, along the way, deepen divisions between Washington and its major allies.
So, let’s put this issue into context. Congressional rejection of the Iran deal won’t be pretty. While it might convince the President to seek “a better deal” to win legislative
support, we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that we can just go back to square one with negotiations or that we can keep the current sanctions regime in place as if
the past two years of diplomacy never happened. We will be in a different place, much grayer than before.
that messiness is a far cry from war. In my view, the only war that may ensue from a
Congressional vote of disapproval is a war of words between our legislative and executive
branches, eventually adjudicated by the Supreme Court. In other words, the worst-case scenario will
be business as usual in Washington.
But
Deal bad – Prolif
Iran deal leads to proliferation cascades in the Middle East
Rogin 6/24/15 - Josh Rogin is a Bloomberg View columnist who writes about national security and foreign affairs. He has previously worked for the Daily
Beast, Newsweek, Foreign Policy magazine, the Washington Post, Congressional Quarterly and Asahi Shimbun. (Josh, “Clinton Defense Chief: Iran Deal Could Spark
Proliferation”, Bloomberg, June 24, 2015, http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-24/clinton-defense-chief-iran-deal-could-spark-proliferation//DM)
Gulf Arab powers are likely to respond to President Barack Obama’s pending nuclear deal with Iran by
developing their own nuclear programs, former Defense Secretary William Cohen said Wednesday. He said they
don’t trust either the Iranians or the United States to protect their interests. “The administration’s intent
was to have a counter-proliferation program. And the irony is, it may be just the opposite,” he told a meeting
of Bloomberg reporters Wednesday morning. As Secretary of State John Kerry prepares to meet Iranian leaders for the final push toward a comprehensive nuclear deal with
Iran, there’s
growing angst in countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Israel
about the deal, which will leave Iran with significant uranium enrichment capabilities and may not give the international community the right to inspect all of
Iran’s nuclear facilities. The administration argues that a deal with Iran will remove the need for other regional powers to pursue their own nuclear enrichment and weapons
programs. Cohen said the region doesn’t see it that way. “Once
you say they are allowed to enrich, the game is pretty much up in
terms of how do you sustain an inspection regime in a country that has carried on secret programs for 17
years and is still determined to maintain as much of that secrecy as possible,” said Cohen, who was a Republican lawmaker from
Maine before serving under President Clinton from 1997 to 2001. Other regional powers are further skeptical of the
international community’s ability to enforce any deal with Iran because the Obama administration
has lost credibility in the region, according to Cohen. He said America's relationships in the region were damaged in
2013, when President Obama backed away from striking Syria after telling Gulf allies he would do so, even
though the Assad regime had crossed his "red line" on chemical weapons. “It was mishandled and everybody in the region saw
how it was handled. And I think it shook their confidence in the administration. … The Saudis, the UAE and the Israelis were all
concerned about that,” Cohen said. “They are looking at what we say, what we do, and what we fail to do, and they make
their judgments. In the Middle East now, they are making different calculations.”
Iran will cheat
Devany 7/19, staff writer at The Hill, (Tim, 7/19/15, Deal critic: Iran will cheat, The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/international/248454-deal-critic-iran-willcheat)//kap
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) warned Sunday that Iran
other power and could
will “cheat” on the nuclear agreement with the Obama administration and
develop a nuclear weapon within a decade.
He called on Congress to reject the Iranian nuclear deal, because the
inspection, verification and enforcement procedures are “too
weak” to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon.
“I think we
have to assume that they will cheat on the deal,” Cotton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
"Ultimately, even
if they obey every single detail of the deal, it puts them on the path to be a nuclear
weapons state in eight to 10 years,” he added.
Cotton, who served in the Army on tours in Iraq and Afghanistan before running for office, warned that Iran
should not to be trusted.
"Iran
is a terror-sponsoring, anti-American, outlaw regime,” Cotton said. "They’ve got the blood of hundreds of
American soldiers and Marines on their hands.”
"If you think Iran is going to change their behavior in a decade, I can tell you how unlikely that is,” he added.
"Because just nine years ago, they were trying to kill me and my soldiers. We were lucky, but hundreds of other American troops were not.
Deal Bad – Instability
Iran deal is bad – doesn’t deter Iran from making bombs and aids it in its pursuit for
regional hegemony
Dr. Kuperman 6/23/15 – teaches courses in global policy studies and is coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project (Alan, “The Iran
Deal’s Fatal Flaw”, The New York Times, June 23, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/opinion/the-iran-deals-fatal-flaw.html//DM)
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S main pitch for the pending nuclear deal with Iran is that it would extend the
“breakout time” necessary for Iran to produce enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. In a recent interview
with NPR, he said that the current breakout time is “about two to three months by our intelligence estimates.” By contrast,
he claimed, the pending deal would shrink Iran’s nuclear program, so that if Iran later “decided to break the
deal, kick out all the inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, we’d have over a year to respond.”
Unfortunately, that claim is false, as can be demonstrated with basic science and math. By my
calculations, Iran’s actual breakout time under the deal would be approximately three months — not
over a year. Thus, the deal would be unlikely to improve the world’s ability to react to a sudden effort
by Iran to build a bomb. Breakout time is determined by three primary factors: the number and type of
centrifuges; the enrichment of the starting material; and the amount of enriched uranium required for a
nuclear weapon. Mr. Obama seems to make rosy assumptions about all three. Most important, in the event of an
overt attempt by Iran to build a bomb, Mr. Obama’s argument assumes that Iran would employ only the
5,060 centrifuges that the deal would allow for uranium enrichment, not the roughly 14,000 additional
centrifuges that Iran would be permitted to keep mainly for spare parts. Such an assumption is laughable.
In a real-world breakout, Iran would race, not crawl, to the bomb. These additional centrifuges would need to be connected, brought up to speed and
equilibrated with the already operating ones. But at that point, Iran’s enrichment capacity could exceed three times what Mr. Obama assumes. This flaw could be addressed
by amending the deal to require Iran to destroy or export the additional centrifuges, but Iran refuses. Second, since the deal would permit Iran to keep only a small amount
of enriched uranium in the gaseous form used in centrifuges, Mr. Obama
assumes that a dash for the bomb would start mainly from
unenriched uranium, thereby lengthening the breakout time. But the deal would appear to also permit Iran to
keep large amounts of enriched uranium in solid form (as opposed to gas), which could be reconverted to gas
within weeks, thus providing a substantial head-start to producing weapons-grade uranium. Third, Mr. Obama’s
argument assumes that Iran would require 59 pounds of weapons-grade uranium to make an atomic bomb. In
reality, nuclear weapons can be made from much smaller amounts of uranium (as experts assume North Korea does in its rudimentary arsenal). A 1995 study by the
Natural Resources Defense Council concluded that even a “low technical capability” nuclear weapon could
produce an explosion with a force approaching that of the Hiroshima bomb — using just 29 pounds of
weapons-grade uranium. Based on such realistic assumptions, Iran’s breakout time under the pending deal actually would
be around three months, while its current breakout time is a little under two months. Thus, the deal would increase the
breakout time by just over a month, too little to matter. Mr. Obama’s main argument for the agreement — extending Iran’s breakout time — turns out to be effectively
In
addition, the deal could release frozen Iranian assets, reportedly giving Tehran a $30 billion to $50
billion “signing bonus.” Continue reading the main story Showering Iran with rewards for making illusory concessions
poses grave risks. It would entrench the ruling mullahs, who could claim credit for Iran’s economic
resurgence. The extra resources would also enable Iran to amplify the havoc it is fostering in neighboring countries
like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Worst of all, lifting sanctions would facilitate a huge expansion of Iran’s
nuclear program. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, says that he wants 190,000 centrifuges
eventually, or 10 times the current amount, as would appear to be permissible under the deal after just 10 years. Such enormous enrichment capacity
would shrink the breakout time to mere days, so that Iran could produce enough weapons-grade
uranium for a bomb before we even knew it was trying — thus eliminating any hope of our taking
preventive action. Nothing in the pending deal is worth such risks. Unless President Obama can extract
significantly greater concessions at the negotiating table, Congress should refuse to lift sanctions, thereby
blocking implementation of a deal that would provide Iran billions of dollars to pursue nuclear weapons and
regional hegemony.
worthless. By contrast, Iran stands to gain enormously. The deal would lift nuclear-related sanctions, thereby infusing Iran’s economy with billions of dollars annually.
The deal gives Iran resources and motivation to expand destabilization in the region
Singh, 6/30/15 --- managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. From 2005 to 2008, he worked on Middle East issues at the National
Security Council (Michael, “Can We Trust How Iran Would Spend Funds From a Nuclear Deal?” http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/30/can-we-trust-how-iranwould-spend-funds-from-a-nuclear-deal/)
The deadline in the Iran nuclear negotiations has just been extended. But if an agreement is ultimately reached, Tehran is expected to receive a substantial financial windfall.
Critics have argued that an influx of funds will permit Iran to expand its destabilizing regional activities . The Obama
administration has argued that Iran will use the funds primarily for domestic needs. Who is correct? An estimated $100 billion to $140 billion in Iranian foreign exchange
reserves are being held in escrow in banks overseas (primarily oil revenues that U.S. sanctions block from being repatriated to Iran). It
is not clear how much
of these funds would be made available to Iran under a nuclear agreement, or when. U.S. officials have reportedly indicated that
Iran would receive $30 billion to $50 billion after completing initial steps to comply with an agreement (deactivating centrifuges in excess of those it is permitted to operate,
reducing its stockpile of enriched uranium, and converting its heavy-water reactor). That work could take six months or more. In his most recent budget, Iranian President
Hasan Rouhani proposed government expenditures of approximately $300 billion. While some domestic programs were increased—health-care spending rose 59%–so were
security expenditures. Saeed Ghasseminejad and Emanuele Ottolenghi of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies noted that funding was up 48% for the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps and 40% for the Ministry of Intelligence and Security; overall defense spending, which amounts to 3% of Iran’s gross domestic product, rose
33%. These figures likely understate Iran’s security spending; as the Congressional Research Service recently noted, the Revolutionary Guard Corps spends “significant
amounts of unbudgeted funds on arms, technology, support to pro-Iranian movements, and other functions.” The
Obama administration’s position
assumes that while Iran was willing to substantially increase security spending when sanctions were in effect it
will not do so in the wake of a deal, when economic conditions would improve. This thinking is likely based
on the notion that in the wake of a deal Iran will feel pressure to satisfy public expectations that the deal will
yield tangible benefits and spend more at home. But there are good reasons to think this will not be the case.
Iran’s security spending is driven by more than tensions over its nuclear program. The Revolutionary Guards
are heavily engaged in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan; none of these conflicts will end if an Iran deal is
reached–and the situations may get worse. To the extent that a deal is seen as a “win” for pragmatists led by
President Rouhani, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, may want to placate hard-liners by
boosting his financial support to the security apparatus they dominate. Iran’s security spending goes to
both foreign endeavors and monitoring its own people, an imperative that is likely to grow if the deal permits
greater economic and diplomatic openness to the outside world. The Obama administration has also argued that unfreezing Iran’s
assets will not lead to an increase in its destabilizing regional activities because “the cost of Iran’s support for terrorism and regional interventions is relatively small.” This
conflates two very distinct activities. It is arguably correct that the cost of individual terrorist acts is small; this is one reason that terrorism is so widespread and difficult to
prevent. There is, however, little reason to believe that Iran’s sponsorship of terrorist organizations and efforts to coopt or subvert governments (see: Syria, Lebanon,
Yemen, and Iraq) is inexpensive. Consider that Iran’s declared military budget is $12 billion to $15 billion. Iranian annual support for Syria’s Assad regime was recently
estimated at $6 billion to $15 billion. Iran’s funding of Hezbollah has been estimated at $200 million per year, though that may have increased with the organization’s heavy
Iran is likely to spend any financial
windfall from a nuclear agreement on both domestic and foreign priorities–as it has done in good economic
times and bad. The two are not mutually exclusive, and Iran is not likely to reorder its priorities. The agreement terms reportedly under discussion provide Iran with
losses in Syria. Iran also funds Shiite militias in Iraq, and it sponsors groups in Gaza, Yemen, and elsewhere. In short,
substantial economic relief while demanding precisely nothing from it regarding its sponsorship of terrorism and destabilizing regional behavior. Good policymaking
demands that the benefit of any nuclear agreement be weighed against this cost, rather than pretending it does not exist.
Iran deal is counterproductive – sets dangerous precedents and ensures Middle
Eastern war
Schoen 6/29/15 - I’m a longtime political strategist, Fox News contributor and author of several books, including the recently published The End of
Authority: How a Loss of Legitimacy and Broken Trust are Endangering our Future (Doug, “Iran Negotiations: No Deal Is Still Better Than A Bad Deal”, Forbes, June 19,
2015, http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2015/07/07/patent-protections-within-the-tpp-arent-unprecedented-theyre-what-american-innovators-deserve//DM)
The Iranian nuclear deal looks increasingly problematic for the United States, even perilous. Yet our
negotiators appear to be doing everything possible to accommodate an erratic and secretive Iranian regime in their quest
for an agreement that could well facilitate Iran developing a bomb, as well as encouraging additional
terrorism around the world. There are a few simple facts that it seems our negotiating team has forgotten as we move towards the deadline. First and
foremost, the Iranians need this deal much more than we do. So much more, in fact, that their economy won’t
survive if we don’t lift the sanctions. Second, we have allies in the region – specifically Israel – that may not
survive if we don’t push Iran to meet terms that will genuinely halt their program. We have talked endlessly about our support
for Israel, now is the crucial time to show it. Third, Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. President Obama
admitted this himself just a few months ago, which makes it all the more disheartening that we are negotiating with them as if we’re the ones who need this deal, at any cost.
Iran is in the driver’s seat and it seems that they’ve almost completely lost the plot here. While Secretary of State John Kerry says that “We’re just working an it’s too early to
make any judgments,” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei appears on state television calling our terms “excessive
coercion” and making it clear that “[Iran doesn’t] accept a 10-year restriction.” He continued, “We have told
the negotiating team how many specific years of restrictions are acceptable. Research and development must
continue during the years of restrictions.” It follows that very little progress has been made since the deal’s framework was hashed out in early
spring. What was initially met with partying in the streets in Tehran quickly became insufficient in the eyes of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who now has
declared new “red lines” as negotiators worked towards a deal. His red lines prompted harsh reactions. Five
former members of Obama’s foreign
policy team – including General David Petraeus –wrote an open letter to this effect. Their concern centers on
the fact that the deal, as it is, will not require Iran to dismantle their nuclear enrichment infrastructure, even if it
will reduce it for the next 10-15 years. Under the framework deal, the US and its partners are aiming for one year breakout time, with some potential constraints in place
after the deal’s timeline has played out. This just isn’t enough. Furthermore, Iran
wants to pursue “industrial-scale” production of
uranium after the deal, which could essentially push breakout time to zero. In a region that has already seen an uptick in tension
and violence in anticipation of a bad deal, a nuclear Iran would all but ensure war. Inspections are also a huge point of contention. Whereas
Iran’s Supreme Leader essentially wants to keep all inspectors out of Iran’s facilities, the authors of the letter make it quite clear that we need to be able to take samples,
interview scientists, review and copy documents about Iran’s past nuclear program at any time. This should be non-negotiable. History
has taught us the
Iranians are not to be trusted, and now is no time to make an exception. Moreover, what message would caving on
inspections send to the region? Whatever deal is reached with Iran would set a dangerous precedent, especially for any country that
wanted to avoid inspections. Let’s hope that as Iran’s lead negotiator, Mohammed Zarif, regroups with Iranian leadership in Tehran, Kerry and his colleagues take the
opportunity to be mindful of what’s at stake here. Now
is the time for the US to buckle down and stay true to the original
intent of these negotiations. The United States negotiators need to remember why we’re at the table, and that we could, and should, walk away if the
Iranians push for a bad deal. They need us more than we need them.
Iran deal only aids its regional ambitions – economic relief will go towards
sponsoring hegemonic initiatives
The Tower.org Staff 7/1/15 (The Tower.org, “Expert: Economic Benefits of Sanctions Relief Likely to Boost Iran’s Regional Threat”, July 1,
2015, http://www.thetower.org/2242-expert-economic-benefits-of-sanctions-relief-likely-to-boost-irans-regional-threat//DM)
The expected windfall Iran would receive from sanctions relief as part of a nuclear deal would likely benefit
its internal and external security services—including proxy terrorist groups such as Hezbollah—which
would further destabilize the Middle East, according to an analysis published today in The Wall Street Journal by Michael Singh, the managing
director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In his most recent budget, Iranian President Hasan Rouhani proposed government
expenditures of approximately $300 billion. While some domestic programs were increased—health-care spending rose 59%–so were security
expenditures. Saeed Ghasseminejad and Emanuele Ottolenghi of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies noted that funding was up 48% for the
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and 40% for the Ministry of Intelligence and Security; overall defense
spending, which amounts to 3% of Iran’s gross domestic product, rose 33%. These figures likely understate Iran’s security
spending; as the Congressional Research Service recently noted, the Revolutionary Guard Corps spends “significant amounts of unbudgeted funds on arms, technology,
support to pro-Iranian movements, and other functions.” … There is, however, little reason to believe that Iran’s sponsorship of terrorist organizations and efforts to coopt
or subvert governments (see: Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq) is inexpensive. Consider that Iran’s declared military budget is $12 billion to $15 billion. Iranian annual
support for Syria’s Assad regime was recently estimated at $6 billion to $15 billion. Iran’s funding of Hezbollah has been estimated at $200 million per year, though that may
have increased with the organization’s heavy losses in Syria. Iran also funds Shiite militias in Iraq, and it sponsors groups in Gaza, Yemen, and elsewhere. In short, Ir an
is
likely to spend any financial windfall from a nuclear agreement on both domestic and foreign priorities–as it
has done in good economic times and bad. The two are not mutually exclusive, and Iran is not likely to
reorder its priorities. The agreement terms reportedly under discussion provide Iran with substantial economic relief
while demanding precisely nothing from it regarding its sponsorship of terrorism and destabilizing
regional behavior. Good policymaking demands that the benefit of any nuclear agreement be weighed against this cost, rather than pretending it does not exist.
Agence France-Presse reported that Iran plans to devote greater resources over the next five years to “developing
ballistic missile capabilities, arms production and modern weaponry.” The fear that Iran would use its
windfall to further its hegemonic designs on the Middle East is something that the administration has
dismissed. But other regional actors disagree. Earlier this week, Lebanese politician Ahmad el-Assaad wrote that he feared that the
nuclear deal would ensure that “Lebanon won’t be able to free itself in the foreseeable future from
the control of Hezbollah.” More generally, numerous experts expect that with its expected windfall, Iran will seek to export its
revolution more aggressively across the Middle East. In April, three fellows with the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy warned that a deal would allow Iran “to project its power into corners
of the Middle East in ways that were never possible before.” Similarly, David Rothkopf, editor of Foreign Policy magazine, wrote
that “focusing on the Iran nuclear deal without simultaneously addressing Iran’s regional threat is a serious
error.” Former State Department official Aaron David Miller wrote that an unless the deal “really does change Iran’s behavior, we’ve only bought
ourselves a bigger [crisis] down the road.”
Lifting sanctions won’t change Iran’s malignant foreign policies – they don’t like the
U.S.
Michaels 7/18 – military writer for USA TODAY (Jim, “Top U.S. officer worries Iran deal will fund 'malign activities'”, USA Today, 6/18/15,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/07/18/martin-dempsey-iran-nuclear-deal-malign-activities/30344067/, accessed 7/18/15)//RZ
"The
agreement has managed to set aside for now one of the malign activities with which we were concerned,
but there are other malign activities," Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said en route to Iraq for
a tour Saturday.
Washington opposes Iran's support for the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad during a long civil war in his
country. Iran also supports insurgents in Yemen and the State Department says it is a primary sponsor of terrorism in the
Middle East.
In Tehran on Saturday, Iran's
Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in a televised speech that the nuclear deal won't
change Iran's policy towards the "arrogant" U.S. government.
Khamenei said U.S. policy in the Middle East runs counter to Iran's strategy and his country will continue
to support allies that include the Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon, Palestinians and the Assad government, the Associated Press
reported.
"Our policy toward the arrogant U.S. government won't change at all," Khamenei said, according to the AP.
The agreement requires Iran to limit its nuclear program and ensure it is only for peaceful purposes in exchange for a lifting of sanctions that have crippled Iran's economy.
Removal of sanctions would produce a financial windfall for oil-rich Iran, which would receive funds
previously frozen and be able to sell oil on world markets again.
Israel and many Republicans in Congress
have assailed the deal between Iran and six world powers, saying Tehran will be able to expand its
support for terrorist groups once sanctions are lifted.
President Obama, who championed the negotiations, said he hoped Iran would use the money to rebuild its country and rejoin the world economic community, from which
it has long been isolated.
Dempsey made a similar case — with a caveat. "There is every reason to believe" that Iran will use increased revenues from the lifting of sanctions to strengthen its
economy,"he said. "But I
am also alert to the possibility that some of it will be used to support the other malign
activities where we have concerns with Iran," he said.