Negotiators in Switzerland are pushing for a deal limiting Iran’s nuclear program before their self-imposed deadline of Tuesday, under pressure to reach agreement on a political framework that won’t be seen as toothless by skeptics in Washington.
The Obama administration is expected to use the momentum from any agreement to help sell it to a skeptical Congress and U.S. voters. But while many members of the national security establishment are likely to line up behind a deal, opponents have been bolstered by leaked details of a possible agreement that indicate it may not be enforceable.
Though 49 percent of Americans support the talks, 63 percent doubt that Iran is serious about addressing international concerns over its nuclear program, according to a new Pew poll released Monday.
Most also want Congress to approve any deal — an outcome that has become more likely in recent weeks despite President Obama’s determination to veto legislation requiring him to submit one to lawmakers.
On Monday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf pushed back against concerns that U.S. negotiators were making so many concessions that international inspectors would not be able to verify whether Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.
“We aren’t going to rush to accept a bad deal,” she said. “And so if we can’t get a good deal, we won’t take one, pure and simple. I think we’ve all been clear about that.”
But Iranian officials struck a more triumphant tone as the negotiations in Lausanne, Switzerland, moved toward the deadline. An informed source close to Iran’s negotiating team told Iranian state media that they are sticking to their “principled stance” in the talks and that “Western hype about this issue is baseless.”
Officials of the P5+1 group — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — told reporters at the talks that three issues were holding up agreement: limits on Iran’s nuclear research and development activities, the timing of the lifting of international sanctions on Iran, and how those sanctions might be put back in place if Iran cheats. Those issues also are at the heart of concerns by the deal’s critics in Washington.
Added to those concerns was a statement Sunday by Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Abbas Araqchi,who told Iranian reporters his country was no longer willing to send its stockpiles of enriched uranium to Russia for storage — a key element in efforts to keep Iran at least a year away from being able to develop a nuclear weapon.
“I am concerned our negotiators may be cutting corners and overlooking significant issues as they rush headlong into a deal,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn. “Our nation and the world would be much better off if they would slow down or pause to ensure that if a deal is reached, it will be enforceable, hold Iran accountable, and be strong enough to stand the test of time.”
A bill by Corker and Bob Menendez of New Jersey, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, picked up some key support last week when Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the presumptive heir to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, signed on as a co-sponsor. The panel is set to mark up the bill on April 14, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has promised a quick floor vote.
Corker and other supporters of the legislation expect it to pass in both chambers of Congress with a margin sufficient to override Obama’s expected veto. Their case is bolstered by the results of the Pew survey, in which 62 percent of respondents said Congress should have the final authority to approve any deal, versus 29 percent who said it should fall to Obama alone. Two-thirds of independents joined 83 percent of Republicans in saying Congress should approve the deal. Democrats were split 51 percent for Obama to 42 percent for Congress.
“There is some concern on the Hill that the goalposts appear to be moved” by administration concessions that seem likely to leave Iran able to build a nuclear weapon, said Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. “There’s deep concern about what ultimately will be left in Iran in terms of nuclear infrastructure.”
If the talks fail, the Senate also is set to consider another bill by Menendez and Mark Kirk, R-Ill, that would impose tougher sanctions on Iran.
“I think it’s no secret that Congress, our Congress certainly, is interested in acting, and we have obviously said we’re very opposed to that action. That puts sort of an additional pressure on our side,” Harf said Monday. “But I do think in general, we and our P5+1 partners agree that the decisions for Iran don’t get easier the more you wait — we’ve all said that, and that now is really the time to make these decisions.”
