UN backs Iran deal, infuriating lawmakers from both parties

The Obama administration was forced to play defense on Monday after lawmakers in both parties criticized its decision to let the United Nations — not Congress — have the first say on the Iran nuclear deal.

Republicans pounced on the decision following the U.N. Security Council’s 15-0 vote, arguing the White House was giving short shrift to congressional assent in a rush to build international support for the agreement.

ADVERTISEMENT
The White House appeared to hope that the U.N. vote would build pressure on Congress to back the deal, but the strategy risked backfiring, with some Democrats scolding the administration for the decision.

Rep. Eliot Engel (N.Y.), the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, joined panel Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) in a statement saying they were “disappointed” that the U.N. Security Council voted “before Congress was able to fully review and act on this agreement.”

“Regardless of this morning’s outcome, Congress will continue to play its role,” they added.

Administration officials fought back, countering that lawmakers still have two months to make up their minds.

“No ability of the Congress has been impinged on,” Secretary of State John KerryJohn Forbes KerryFeehery: Oprah Dem presidential bid unlikely Dem hopefuls flock to Iowa Change in Iran will only come from its people — not the United States MORE insisted on Monday. 

Kerry claimed that the administration was between a rock and a hard place. Either the White House risked getting flak at home, he said, or Iran and the other negotiating nations would balk at the idea of holding their landmark international agreement hostage to one country’s legislature.

“Frankly, some of these other countries were quite resistant to the idea, as sovereign nations, that they were subject to the United States Congress,” Kerry said.

“When you’re negotiating with six other countries, it does require, obviously, a measure of sensitivity and multilateral cooperation that has to take into account other nations’ desires.”

Most of the criticism on Monday came from Republicans eager to criticize the administration’s handling of the Iranian issue.

Sen. John CornynJohn CornynMcCarthy: ‘No deadline on DACA’ NSA spying program overcomes key Senate hurdle Hoyer suggests Dems won't support spending bill without DACA fix MORE (Texas), the No. 2 Senate Republican, called the U.N. action “an affront to the American people” and accused the White House of “jamming this deal through” without proper congressional scrutiny. 

Sen. Marco RubioMarco Antonio RubioOvernight Cybersecurity: Bipartisan bill aims to deter election interference | Russian hackers target Senate | House Intel panel subpoenas Bannon | DHS giving 'active defense' cyber tools to private sector Senators unveil bipartisan push to deter future election interference Puerto Rico's children need recovery funds MORE (R-Fla.), who is running for the White House, used the phrase “capitulation Monday,” pointing to both the Iran vote and Cuba’s opening of a U.S. Embassy in Washington.

“This is a bad start for a bad deal,” said Speaker John BoehnerJohn Andrew BoehnerDems face hard choice for State of the Union response Even some conservatives seem open to return to earmarks Overnight Finance: Trump, lawmakers take key step to immigration deal | Trump urges Congress to bring back earmarks | Tax law poised to create windfall for states | Trump to attend Davos | Dimon walks back bitcoin criticism MORE (R-Ohio).

Monday morning’s U.N. vote came just hours after the State Department formally sent the Iran deal to Congress to be reviewed.

“Enabling such a consequential vote just 24 hours after submitting the agreement documents to Congress undermines our national security and violates the spirit of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act,” BoehnerJohn Andrew BoehnerDems face hard choice for State of the Union response Even some conservatives seem open to return to earmarks Overnight Finance: Trump, lawmakers take key step to immigration deal | Trump urges Congress to bring back earmarks | Tax law poised to create windfall for states | Trump to attend Davos | Dimon walks back bitcoin criticism MORE said, referring to the law giving Congress 60 days to review and decide whether or not to condemn the deal.

Congress can vote to block the deal in September, but Republicans would have to win over at least 13 Democrats in the Senate — and dozens in the House — to override a presidential veto.

The administration has sought to win support from the public and Democrats in Congress for the deal, while Republicans are busily working to turn people away from the deal — and make any votes for Democrats difficult.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob CorkerRobert (Bob) Phillips CorkerSenate campaign fundraising reports roll in Congress should take the lead on reworking a successful Iran deal North Korea tensions ease ahead of Winter Olympics MORE (R-Tenn.) — who last week sent a letter along with the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Ben CardinBenjamin (Ben) Louis CardinCongress should take the lead on reworking a successful Iran deal 'Fix' the Iran deal, but don't move the goalposts North Korea tensions ease ahead of Winter Olympics MORE (Md.), asking President Obama to postpone the U.N. vote — also criticized Monday’s action.

“It is inappropriate to commit the United States to meet certain international obligations without even knowing if Congress and the American people approve or disapprove of the Iran agreement,” he said. “During the review period, members on both sides of the aisle will evaluate the agreement carefully, press the administration for answers and then vote their conscience.”

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democrat, also has said that the United Nations vote should have been delayed.

Over the next eight days, top administration officials will make multiple visits to Capitol Hill to reassure lawmakers.

On Wednesday, Kerry, Treasury Secretary Jack LewJacob (Jack) Joseph LewOvernight Finance: Hatch announces retirement from Senate | What you can expect from new tax code | Five ways finance laws could change in 2018 | Peter Thiel bets big on bitcoin Ex-Obama Treasury secretary: Tax cuts 'leaving us broke' Senator demands answers from DOJ on Russia bribery probe MORE, Energy Secretary Ernest MonizErnest Jeffrey MonizOvernight Energy: Zinke under fire for exempting Florida from drilling plan | Trump floats staying in Paris deal | NYC sues big oil over climate A Department of Energy foundation: An idea whose time has come Stop wasting tax dollars on failing nuclear projects MORE and an unnamed “senior intelligence official” will give separate classified briefings for all members of the House and Senate.

Kerry, Lew and Moniz will testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the following day, and then Kerry and Moniz will meet with House Democrats that afternoon.

The three secretaries will return to the House Foreign Affairs Committee next Tuesday.

“That’s an indication that the administration continues to be serious about the responsibility we have to make sure members of Congress have the information they need to consider this agreement over the course of the next 60 days,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.

It was evident that the White House would try to use Monday’s Security Council endorsement to rally members of Congress — especially Democrats — to its side.  

In brief remarks from the Oval Office, Obama said that the vote “will send a clear message that the overwhelming number of countries who not only participated in the deal ... but who have observed what’s happened, recognize that this is by far our strongest approach to ensuring that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.

“My working assumption is that Congress will pay attention to the broad-based consensus,” he added.

The Obama administration also appears eager to claim that a 90-day grace period between the U.N. Security Council vote on Monday and the time sanctions against Iran can begin to be lifted leaves more than enough time for Congress to act.

That 90-day window “is specifically to allow Congress ample time to conduct their review of the agreement,” Earnest said.