Invoking the 'Nuclear Option' Against the Iranian Nuke Deal

by Richard M. Schum

Last week, the Congress began debate on President Obama’s nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Many questions have been raised about the wisdom of the deal, including the lack of verifiability of the inspection regime, the release of over $150 billion that will help fund its ongoing terrorist activities, the secret codicils that the United States is not privy to, the lifting of sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program, and the bellicose words of Iran’s supreme leader, who has continued to openly reject the terms of the deal as the president moves forward with its implementation.

As expected, Mr. Obama has sought to demonize opponents of his deal, framing the issue as a choice between the agreement and going to war.  This type of straw man argument has been employed by the White House many times in support of its positions, and is as contrived as it is ridiculous. Recognizing that the alternative to a bad deal isn’t war, but rather a better deal, most Republicans and some Democrats have expressed serious reservations and gone on record as opposing the deal. Given the sizable and bipartisan nature of the dissent, it would seem that the president would stand little chance of the getting the deal approved the Congress. Indeed, the Constitution requires that treaties be ratified by a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate, and even non-treaty agreements require both House and Senate majorities for passage. 

Enter the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, introduced by Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), and supported overwhelmingly by both parties. It provides for a formal review period of up to 60 days and a vote on a resolution of disapproval that would derail portions of the Iran deal, if passed. However, this resolution would be subject to a presidential veto, requiring House and Senate supermajorities to stop the deal — or only 34 Democratic Senators to effectively approve it — thereby perverting the Constitutional process established by the Founders to serve as a check on the president which requires such agreements to be affirmatively approved by the Congress. While this clearly advances the president’s goal, why would congressional opponents ever agree to undermine their role in the debate?

Some have argued that congressional approval is not required — that the president already has the authority to make the deal with Iran, and that the Corker bill provided the only chance to stop the deal. If true, why would Mr. Obama agree to legislation that would prevent him from making a deal that he already had the authority to make? Clearly, he believed it conferred some benefit, whether legal or political, or he wouldn’t have signed it into law.  And considering the unlikelihood of garnishing enough votes to override a presidential veto, what did opponents hope to gain by agreeing to an extraconstitutional process that actually rewards the president’s lawlessness? Finally, even if a veto were overridden, does anyone expect Mr. Obama to be deterred from implementing as much of his Iran deal as he can get away with, given his record of acting unilaterally and unlawfully on a host of other policy initiatives? 

Read more at American Thinker: 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/invoking_the_nuclear_option_against_the_iranian_nuke_deal.html#ixzz3m6gIpqSW