Turns to U.N. to Outmaneuver Congress
By Colum Lynch
and John Hudson
July 15, 2015
Last March, 47 Republicans led by Sen. Tom
Cotton of Arkansas wrote a letter
warning Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that a future U.S.
president could legally revoke any nuclear deal that had been negotiated by
Barack Obama’s administration with the stroke of a pen. They clearly didn’t
realize that the White House has a way of making that much harder to do.
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations,
Samantha Power, on Monday circulated a legally binding draft to the 15-member
U.N. Security Council that, if adopted, would give the body’s backing to the
landmark nuclear pact trading billions of dollars in sanctions relief for
greater international scrutiny of Iran’s nuclear energy program. It also
instructs states to refrain from taking any actions that would undermine the
agreement. The 14-page draft resolution, obtained by Foreign
Policy, is likely to be put to a vote by early next week.
The decision to take the deal to the Security
Council before the U.S. Congress has concluded its own deliberations on the
agreement places lawmakers in the uncomfortable position of potentially
breaching a binding resolution by voting down the deal. The strategy has
infuriated some Republican lawmakers, who see the administration making an end
run around Congress.
During a Tuesday phone call to Deputy Secretary
of State Tony Blinken, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.)
him to put off a Security Council vote. “I urged that the Obama administration
not seek action at the U.N. Security Council on the agreement before Congress
can review it in detail during the legislatively mandated congressional review
period,” Royce said in a statement.
Congress is currently weighing whether to
accept or reject the deal brokered by the United States, Iran, and five world
powers. Under the terms of a U.S. law passed this year, lawmakers can prevent
the president from lifting congressional sanctions on Iran, which would blow up
the landmark nuclear deal.
However, if a resolution is approved by the
Security Council early next week, any president, Democrat or Republican, would
be legally bound to enforce its terms.
“If Congress were to veto the deal, Congress
— the United States of America — would be in noncompliance with this
agreement and contrary to all of the other countries in the world. I don’t
think that’s going to happen,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told
Kerry suggested that the nuclear accord will
likely win growing acceptance in Washington if Iran fully implements its
obligations and is able to demonstrate “that they’re not able or ready to
make a bomb.”
“I am convinced that whoever is our next
president will see the wisdom of this agreement and they will leave it in
place,” he added.
On Capitol Hill, there are currently two
schools of thought about the wisdom of taking a resolution to the U.N. Security
Council prior to a vote in Congress.
For some Republicans, the move is a dangerous
subjugation of U.S. sovereignty and an insult to Congress’s oversight role.
“Given that huge bipartisan majorities in
both houses voted for legislation to prevent the president from implementing the
agreement before congressional review, I think members from both sides of the
aisle will see this tactic as an end run on Congress,” said Jamil Jaffer, a
Republican and former chief counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Others, even those skeptical of a deal, prefer
that the U.N. take action first so that Congress can better understand the
accord it’s approving or rejecting.
“It actually makes sense that we would go
second because then we’ll know what we’re voting on,” said a congressional
aide who focuses on the Iran nuclear portfolio. “If we went first, we’d be
in the uncomfortable position of approving something that could change depending
on what’s agreed on at the U.N.”
Indeed, the United States and its negotiating
partners have not included some of the most controversial provisions — for
instance, a decision to lift an embargo on conventional weaponry in five years
and ease restrictions on the development and import of ballistic missile
technology in eight years — in the nuclear accord that will be reviewed by
Congress. Instead, those provisions are embedded in the new U.N. Security
Council resolution, which congressional critics of the deal will have no power
The new draft resolution provides weaker
restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program than those contained in
previous resolutions, which banned Iran from undertaking “any activity related
to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.” The draft under
consideration would only “call upon” Iran not to engage in such activities.
It also includes no explicit prohibition on Iran’s development or import of
conventional missile technology. That means Iran can continue to advance its
conventional ballistic missile program without violating the terms set by the
U.N. Security Council.
But acquiring foreign supplies for its missile
program will still be constrained by the deal. A U.S. administration official
familiar with the deliberations noted that the draft requires that any company
trying to supply Iran with missile-related technology seek approval from a
committee composed of representatives from key powers, including the United
States. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Washington would
use its position to “veto” the import of any sensitive missile technology
into Iran. “The practical effect” of the new resolution is to preserve the
same prohibitions contained in existing resolutions, said the official. “It
prohibits effectively any transfer of missile technology, conventional or
According to an individual familiar with the
talks, the compromise on the arms embargo and ballistic missile sanctions came
at the eleventh hour of negotiations in Vienna. Iran, backed by Russia, insisted
that a final deal lift all restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic
missiles immediately. Seeking to break the impasse, Kerry “did some
maneuvering between the Iranians and Russians and got it to a five-eight
compromise,” meaning the conventional-arms embargo would be in effect for
another five years and restrictions on ballistic missile technology would extend
for eight years rather than lift immediately. “This was a Kerry special,”
said the individual.
Prior to the conclusion of the nuclear talks,
Republicans such as New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte grilled Obama administration
officials about the dangers of lifting sanctions on Iran that deter it from
obtaining conventional weapons or ballistic missiles.
Responding to a question from Ayotte last week,
Gen. Martin Dempsey, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told
the Senate Armed Services Committee that “under no circumstances should we
relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms
When Dempsey’s remarks were raised during a
press conference with Obama on Wednesday, the president pushed back, saying,
“We are not taking the pressure off Iran with respect to arms and with respect
to ballistic missiles.”
Instead, the president asserted, the new resolution would keep those restrictions in place while leaving Washington with a “host of other multilateral and unilateral authorities that allow us to take action where we see Iran engaged in those activities, whether it’s six years from now or 10 years from now,” he said.