A bill calling for the US Congress to have a say on an emerging nuclear agreement with Iran has turned into a tug of war on Capitol Hill, with Republicans trying to raise the bar so high that a final deal might be impossible and Democrats aiming to give the White House more room to negotiate with Tehran.
Senators of both parties are considering more than 50 amendments to a bill introduced by Senators Bob Corker and Bob Menendez, the Associated Press reported on Saturday.
The bill would restrict US President Barack Obama's ability to ease sanctions against Iran without congressional approval.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday is to debate the amendments and vote on the bill, which has pitted the White House against the Republican-led Congress on a critical foreign policy issue that Obama wants etched in his legacy.
Obama administration officials, who are expected to continue lobbying lawmakers next week, do not want Congress to take any action before a final deal could be reached by the end of June. There is strong support, however, from lawmakers of both parties who think they should be able to weigh in on any agreement on Tehran's nuclear program. Iran says its nuclear work is solely for peaceful purposes, but the US and its allies claim Tehran may be seeking to develop a nuclear weapons capability under the guise of a civilian program.
There have been intense negotiations on Capitol Hill for the past several days about ways to amend the bill. Advocacy groups and congressional staffers provided details about amendments, which still might be withdrawn or rewritten.
Under the bill as it is currently written, Obama could unilaterally lift or ease any sanctions that were imposed on Iran through presidential action. But the bill would prohibit him for 60 days from suspending, waiving or otherwise easing any sanctions Congress levied on Iran. During that 60-day period, Congress could hold hearings and approve, disapprove or take no action on any final nuclear agreement with Iran.
If Congress passed a joint resolution approving a final deal — or took no action — Obama could move ahead to ease sanctions levied by Congress. But if Congress passed a joint resolution disapproving it, Obama would be blocked from providing Iran with any relief from congressional sanctions.
In an effort to give the president more negotiating room, Senator Ben Cardin, the new ranking Democrat on the foreign relations committee, and a few of his Democratic colleagues have proposed letting Obama waive congressionally imposed sanctions if not doing so would cause the US to be in violation of a final agreement.
Several Democratic senators also have proposed shortening the congressional review period to 30 days or even 10 days that Congress is in session. Democrats also want to strike a part of the bill that requires the Obama administration to certify that Iran has not directly supported or carried out an act of terrorism against the United States or an American anywhere in the world.
Tall Order
On the Republican side, Senator Marco Rubio, a likely presidential candidate, has proposed an amendment that would require the Obama administration to certify that Iran's leaders have publicly accepted Israel's right to exist. That's a tall order.
Dylan Williams, a lobbyist for the liberal Jewish group J Street, argues that Rubio's proposed amendment puts Republicans in a "lose-lose" position. Adopting the amendment would kill the Corker bill, Williams said, because many senators would vote against a provision they know the Iranians would never accept. Defeating the amendment, he said, would be seen as a slap at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom Republican leaders have strongly supported on the Iran nuclear matter.
Republican senators also are contemplating amendments that would require that any final agreement be a treaty. That's also a high hurdle because treaties must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate.
