Sen. Corker’s Iran Legislation: A Bad Bill Beyond Repair
Sen. Corker’s Iran Legislation: A Bad Bill Beyond Repair
April 13, 2015
Tomorrow, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to mark up the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, a bill proposed by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ). The bill has been percolating in Congress for months and has been described as a reasonable alternative to sanctions legislation that would derail the P5+1 Iranian nuclear negotiations. However, Sen. Corker’s legislation contains a litany of provisions that would move the goalposts on an agreement and make any deal – even a good deal – almost impossible to implement. Some senators are expected to propose several amendments tomorrow to try to rectify some of these concerns, while Republican members plan on proposing more hardline amendments like requiring Iran to recognize Israel. The bottom line is that this proposal, unless dramatically altered, is simply a bad bill that’s beyond repair. The Corker bill is being rushed through Congress for no reason and would make a deal more difficult to achieve and enforce. Congress has a role to play in the Iranian nuclear negotiations, but the Corker bill is not the right way for Congress to weigh in.
The problems with the Corker bill go far beyond just the terrorism provision.
The terrorism provision is a “poison pill” that would allow Iranian hardliners and terrorists to spoil a productive agreement. The Corker bill includes a “provision that requires the president to certify every 90 days that Iran has not been directly involved in any terrorist activity that has harmed U.S. interests,” notes Col. Richard Klass (Ret.), Board Member of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “Of course Iran’s support for terrorism is deplorable. But adding extraneous provisions, no matter how important, is a poison pill. This provision also gives Iranian-backed terror groups such as Hezbollah or hardliners in Tehran the power to derail this deal simply by ordering some kind of terror attack. If that happens, and even if Iran is in full compliance with the nuclear deal, the Corker bill allows Congress to re-impose sanctions already lifted. At that point, the agreement is dead.” [Richard Klass, 4/11/15]
But the problems with the Corker bill go well beyond just this one issue. As NSN Board Member Bruce Jentleson writes, “the Corker-Menendez bill weaves a procedural spider web for congressional review and includes a poison pill provision that hinders, rather than helps, getting a good deal. The procedural web starts with a five-day initial reporting requirement for the June comprehensive agreement, including full analysis of its components and a verification assessment. Even for less complex international agreements, it usually takes at least a month for all elements to be analyzed and the reliability of verification to be assessed by State Department, intelligence community and other experts. Quick turnaround is even harder when negotiations go up to deadlines and indeed into overtime, as did the first two rounds and as this final round almost certainly will. If Congress truly wants quality information to work with on this issue, the five-day turnaround is self-defeating.” Jentleson also points to the 60-day review period and congressional resolution of disapproval as provisions that could derail an agreement even if they’re never implemented. [Bruce Jentleson, 4/13/15]
The bill’s advocates have been relying on misleading analogies to advocate for the bill. Sen. Corker has argued that the potential nuclear agreement is analogous to “123 agreements” that the United States has signed with other nations that have been subject to congressional approval. Those agreements “are designed to ensure that U.S. cooperation with foreign nuclear programs, including the transfer of U.S. nuclear material, equipment, or technology, conforms to U.S. export control laws, meets Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing requirements, and is used exclusively for peaceful purposes and not for the development of nuclear weapons,” write Kelsey Davenport and Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association. “A nuclear deal with Iran, however, will not involve the transfer of proliferation sensitive material, technology, or information from the United States. Instead, the P5+1 and Iran nuclear agreement will require Iran to meet specific requirements that effectively limit its capability to produce material that can be used for nuclear weapons and will put in place additional monitoring requirements to guard against any dash for nuclear weapons in the future. Subjecting the P5+1 and Iran agreement to the same legislative requirements as a bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreement is unnecessary, and it carries enormous risks for the success of a good P5+1 nuclear agreement with Iran.” [Kelsey Davenport and Daryl Kimball, 2/11/15]
Congress has more productive ways of weighing in on the Iran deal than bad legislation that would kill an agreement before it’s ever reached. “Congress doesn’t need Corker-Menendez to have a significant say on an Iran deal,” writes Jentleson. “Congressional hearings over the next few months, if conducted by all sides more as policy deliberation than political contestation, can provide a useful forum for engaging the American public, and focusing in on key issues like verification. As to sanctions, Congress already has its hand on the sanctions lever since many of the sanctions are based on statutes and require congressional action to be lifted. New sanctions could be imposed if Iran is noncompliant. Congress also has inherent oversight authority. All presidents and their executive branch teams do need this accountability, checking the natural temptation to want something you say is going to work to be seen as doing so.” [Bruce Jentleson, 4/13/15]
There is no reason for Congress to rush to pass this legislation. As Col. Klass notes, “Congress doesn’t actually need legislation authorizing a vote on this agreement. Congress has that power right now and can pass a bill defunding its implementation whenever it wants.” If Congress wants to weigh in on an agreement down the road, when the negotiations have concluded, they are within their rights to do that. But the Corker bill prejudges the outcome of the negotiations and prevents the Administration from implementing even a good deal. As Ilan Goldenberg and Robert Kaplan wrote earlier this year, “Congress should think long and hard before it tries to subvert the Iran nuclear talks…Let’s wait a bit longer to see what kind of a deal, if any, the Administration manages to strike with Iran. There will be enough time then for Congress and others to act in order to avoid a sell-out of our principles.” [Richard Klass, 4/11/15. Ilan Goldenberg and Robert Kaplan, 2/13/15]
Crafted by Cornershop