As President Obama’s negotiators met this April to continue discussions with Iran about its nuclear program, Secretary of State John Kerry was asked in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing whether the Obama administration would bring any deal it struck with Tehran for congressional approval. Kerry’s answer was immediate and unequivocal.
“Well, of course, we’d be obligated to under the law,” Kerry said. “We would absolutely have to, and so clearly, what we do will have to pass muster with Congress. We well understand that.”
Six months later, the administration is less clear on the matter. Or maybe what’s less clear is whether Kerry was sincere. The New York Times reports this week that administration officials are so eager to make a deal with the mullahs — whether or not it does “pass muster with Congress” — that “[i]f agreement is reached, President Obama will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it.” In fact, Obama wants to prevent Congress from having any say in the matter “for years,” as one anonymous senior official put it.
The idea is to have Obama “temporarily” — which actually means “permanently but without formal congressional approval” — suspend sanctions against Iran. In exchange, Tehran would allow nuclear inspectors in and limit the number of nuclear centrifuges it has spinning.
Obama’s trial balloon in a loyal media outlet this week suggests that he expects a deal that Congress would hate — one not in America’s best interests. If so, it would not be the first time he was more inclined to side with Iran’s government than with the overwhelming will of his own country’s representatives on Capitol Hill.
In 2009, the overwhelmingly Democratic Senate (including then-Sen. John Kerry) voted 99-0 to impose stronger sanctions on Iran. Obama’s State Department had tried to prevent the vote, complaining that the measure “might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for our efforts.” The House vote was also nearly unanimous in repudiating Obama’s position.
Despite his early opposition, the bipartisan rebuke forced Obama to get behind the sanctions. He would boast during his re-election campaign in 2012 that he imposed “the toughest, most crippling sanctions ever” on Iran, even though he had not wanted them. Less than a year ago, he credited these same sanctions he had opposed with bringing the Iranians to the table for nuclear talks.
The Obama administration has already made dangerous concessions to Iran’s terrorist-sponsoring theocratic regime, including effectively acknowledging its “right” to enrich uranium. By making waves about loosening economic pressure, Obama has already begun unraveling the rationale of the sanctions regime, which is meant to dissuade businesses from risking investment in Iran. Iran has had a history of using negotiations to buy time to press down the accelerator on its nuclear program. Iran with “the bomb” is, or should be, unacceptable to the U.S. and its allies in the Middle East.
American policy is not made by a single person acting unilaterally. The people also elect a legislative branch, the nearly unanimous input from which cannot be rendered meaningless by Obama’s desire for a deal at any cost.
It’s no surprise that Obama wants to sidestep Congress. He has done so repeatedly on less consequential matters, eliciting rebukes from the Supreme Court. Especially on a matter as serious as this one, he must do what his Secretary of State, on his behalf, promised, and bring any deal to Congress so that the people’s representatives can decide.
