President Obama has so far managed to keep key centrist Democrats open-minded on the Iran nuclear agreement he’s trying to sell to Congress, as only a handful have said they have problems with some of the alarming last-minute and unexpected inclusions in the deal.
Obama has vowed to veto any attempt by Congress to kill the agreement with an up or down vote. With Republicans in control of both chambers, the House and Senate are poised to disapprove the deal on a straight majority basis, after which Obama will need to ensure that most Democrats vote against the effort to override that veto.
In the Senate, Obama can only afford to lose 12 Democrats or Independents in that override vote, and some have already expressed skepticism about the agreement.
But Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has repeatedly slammed the deal as Iran appeasement, seemed resigned on Tuesday to the idea that enough Democrats would back Obama’s veto.
“I think over time history will judge it very harshly — it’s a bad deal. [Obama] gave away the store,” he told the Washington Examiner. Still, he said, “the president staked his legacy on this in a fools errand, and I have predicted all along that [Democrats] would cave in the end.”
Just hours after announcing the deal, the White House was confident that Congress, or at least enough Democrats, would fall into line that a presidential veto of any attempt by Congress to nix the deal — if necessary — would be sustained.
Democrats from red states or states with large Jewish populations, such as New York or Connecticut, remain wild cards. But on Tuesday, just hours after Obama and other world leaders announced the historic deal, many of these same Democrats were either keeping their powder dry on the deal, or even appeared to be leaning in favor of it.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who signed a letter with nine other Democrats earlier this year threatening new sanctions if Iran failed to reach a framework on nuclear deal by an earlier Spring deadline, seemed hesitant to criticize the deal and said his support would hinge on a conversation he plans to have with Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz on the details.
“I want to see the details but I’m very much looking forward to moving with our allies to some way prevent [Iran] from developing a nuclear weapon,” he told reporters Tuesday. “I want to talk to Secretary Moniz — he’s the person who has the expertise. He’s spoken to us before. I’m waiting to hear him and his evaluation of what the deal consists of.”
Pressed on whether there is a circumstance in which Manchin might vote against the deal, the conservative Democrat said he is concerned about the easing of the United Nations arms embargo.
“I want to find out how that got into the deal … it was not part of the original talks,” he said. “What did we get for that?”
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., a prominent member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has expressed skepticism but has been leaning yes on the deal over the last several months. On Tuesday, however, he said he needs to take a close look at its complicated details before offering a firm opinion.
“It’s a hundred pages and it’s going to take us a couple of days to get through it,” he said. “The question is how closely does the deal match the April 2 framework and is the inspections regime sufficient to make sure Iran meets its obligations?”
“If it’s a very close match and meets or exceeds the April 2 framework, I think it would be very good for the country,” he continued. “But this is a big and complicated thing — we’ve got a process that gives us 60 days to review it. I don’t think we should be rendering snap judgments about it, I think we should be digging in to determine if in fact it’s in our national interest.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., earlier this year signed the same letter as Manchin, along with Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., the leading Democratic critic, and Sens. Gary Peters, D-Mich., Bob Casey, D-Pa., Ben Cardin, D-Md., Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., and Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.
Blumenthal said Tuesday, however, that he is still evaluating the deal closely.
“I think it was a diplomatic success in reaching an agreement but the terms have to be very closely and carefully reviewed — all of the terms, not just a few in isolation,” he said. “I look forward to applying the kind of exacting standards and scrutiny which are appropriate to an agreement of this consequence.”
Peters was tight-lipped but expressed some frustration over the language easing the conventional arms embargo in the deal.
“This is obviously an important decision, one in which I will do my homework and reflect on it and it will be a decision I feel comfortable with based on my analysis and reflection on what I think is best for the country,” he said.
Peters also said he was surprised by the inclusion of the arms embargo relief after the Obama administration repeatedly promised that the nuclear negotiations were limited to just that — the nuclear program — and not extraneous issues such as conventional weapons, Iran-sponsored support of terrorist activities, or U.S. prisoners the regime is currently holding.
“I was hoping it would have been strictly related to the nuclear program,” he said. “I do have some concerns and I’m going to evaluate those.”
On the House side, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., also a centrist, suggested that he would not support the Iran deal unless it includes a “meaningful and effective” inspections process to verify Iran’s compliance with the agreement.
“Without verification, this is a useless agreement,” Hoyer said. “Without verification that is meaningful and effective, it’s not an agreement that I can support. That is a very, very important question for me.”
The surprise inclusion of a more flexible arms embargo seemed to be producing the widest gap between skeptical Democrats and the president.
In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, a senior Obama administration official acknowledged that the deal allows countries to trade in arms with Iran after five years and swap ballistic-missile technology after eight years. The official appeared to blame other world partners in the P5+1 group on the 11th hour break from administration’s promise that any deal would only focus exclusively on Iran’s nuclear program.
“Two of our partners believed that there should be zero arms restrictions from day one,” the official said. “Other partners had varying interest in this. Our partners had different views about what the missile restriction should be.”
The issue has come up mainly as it relates to U.S. efforts to win the release of four Americans detained in Iran, but it also applies to the conventional arms embargo.
Asked in January whether the U.S. would strike a deal with Iran even if all four Americans remain in Iranian detention, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said both issues have been raised separately.
“The fact is, we believe these American citizens should be released. And we also believe that Iran should take the steps that are necessary to resolve the international community’s concerns about their nuclear program,” Earnest said. “These are both priorities, but these are both priorities that are raised with the Iranians on separate tracks.”
Just last week, Earnest was asked point blank if the U.S. would negotiate on any other topic outside of Iran’s nuclear activity, and he again said negotiators would stick to the main goal at hand: rolling back Iran’s nuclear program.
