Democrats in Congress are widely expected to protect President Obama from the humiliation of having his signature achievement — a nuclear deal with Iran — rejected by lawmakers.
But recent reports of concessions by international negotiators and a hardening of Tehran’s stances on key points have caused at least some to consider the circumstances under which they would vote against implementing any deal if one is signed.
Talks on limiting Iran’s nuclear program are entering a critical phase, with less than a week to go before next Wednesday’s self-imposed deadline for international negotiators to agree on a permanent deal that would replace one signed in November 2013, which was expected to last only six months. Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to Vienna on Friday to join the negotiations, the State Department said.
Details emerging from the talks have bolstered opponents of the deal and given potential Democratic supporters pause, most notably Kerry’s confirmation on June 16 of reports that negotiators would not demand a full accounting of Iran’s past work on nuclear weapons as a condition of any agreement because “we have absolute knowledge with respect to the certain military activities they were engaged in.”
Meanwhile, Iran’s Parliament voted Tuesday to bar access for international inspectors to military sites, a move Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, appeared to endorse Wednesday when he tweeted that inspections of military sites was one of Iran’s “major red lines.”
“We should not sign an agreement that bars inspection access to all military sites. That would not be an agreement that I would support,” Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., told the Washington Examiner.
Coons is one of several Democratic senators seen as potential swing votes targeted in an ad campaign by the American Security Initiative, a bipartisan group whose board includes Democratic and Republican former lawmakers.
Obama signed legislation on May 22 requiring him to submit any deal to Congress for approval. But it also requires opponents to muster enough votes to overcome a presidential veto of a resolution of disapproval if they want to block it. Though Republican majorities in the House and Senate are likely to reject any deal as a bloc, overturning a veto requires Democratic cooperation.
RELATED: Obama agrees to submit Iran deal to Congress
The April 2 release of a framework for a final deal after marathon negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 countries — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — appeared to shore up support among many Democrats by giving them details they could defend to voters, who tell pollsters they support an agreement but are skeptical of Iran’s intentions.
“I’m confident that if the administration signs a deal that looks like the framework, it will be something I can support,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told reporters.
But opponents say the idea that a deal could be reached without verifying Iran’s past activities, which neutral experts have repeatedly said is essential to ensuring Tehran is not trying to build a nuclear weapon, have made it easier to sell the case that whatever emerges from the talks in Vienna will hurt U.S. interests.
RELATED: Experts: Close holes in nuclear deal to keep Iran from cheating
“I think the Iranian Parliament is doing a better job than I could do,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told the Examiner. “I think this deal is deteriorating before our eyes. If something doesn’t change, this is a disaster in the making.”
Many lawmakers see parallels to the failure of a similar deal 20 years ago to prevent North Korea from developing nuclear weapons.
“The Obama administration is dropping its bottom-line by the day,” said House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif. “These continued concessions only embolden Iran’s leaders to press for more.”
Royce told the Examiner on Tuesday that the reported concessions are making it harder for Democrats on his committee to support any deal. “Clearly the verification component would be absolutely essential in the minds of Congress,” he said.
And that’s not the only concern.
Khamenei on Wednesday also demanded “immediate removal of economic, financial and banking sanctions” on the signing of any nuclear agreement. This could become a serious issue for Congress if the administration agrees to that condition, since most U.S. sanctions in that area were imposed because of Iran’s continuing support for terrorism, not the nuclear issue. Obama and Kerry have repeatedly promised lawmakers they would lift only nuclear-related sanctions as part of any deal.
Meanwhile, a confidential draft negotiating document obtained by the Associated Press and detailed in a story published Wednesday indicated that the United States and its international partners were willing to offer Iran state-of-the-art nuclear technology in exchange for limiting programs that could make nuclear weapons.
Among the items discussed in the draft, dated June 19, is a promise to supply Iran with light-water reactors to replace the heavy-water facility at Arak, which could produce bomb-grade plutonium.
It’s not entirely surprising that the United States and the other P5+1 members would offer Iran new technology to replace the Arak reactor. The framework announced April 2 that serves as the basis for a final deal said Iran had agreed to replace the reactor at Arak with a new one “based on a design that is agreed to by the P5+1,” according to a State Department fact sheet. Iran also agreed not to build any new heavy-water reactors for 15 years.
But the scope of what’s being offered is just the latest in what many lawmakers see as an escalating series of concessions by the United States aimed at avoiding failure of the talks.
“Since the start of these negotiations, the Obama administration has done a complete 180 — from denying Iran’s right to enrich uranium to now offering to ship Iran state-of-the-art nuclear equipment,” said Cory Fritz, press secretary to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. “Is there any concession this president won’t make to get a deal?”
