WASHINGTON — Leading lawmakers from both parties in Congress responded cautiously on Thursday to the tentative framework for a nuclear deal between Western powers and Iran, demanding to review any final agreement but pointedly refraining from a vow to kill the accord.
Congress could still scuttle a deal if lawmakers move forward with tough new sanctions on Iran just as economic and nuclear penalties are supposed to be lifted. And Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the panel would continue with plans to formally draft bipartisan legislation on April 14 insisting on congressional examination of any agreement.
The committee’s leadership was looking for ways to shape a bill that would gain broad approval in both parties.
“We want the right to go through the details of the deal and to decide whether we believe congressionally mandated sanctions should be alleviated,” Mr. Corker said in an interview.
That sentiment was bipartisan.
“If Congress appears to be bypassed, that’s not good for the national debate and national unity as we move forward with Iran,” said Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
President Obama made a pointed appeal to Congress to let diplomacy work, even as he promised consultation.
“If Congress kills this deal — not based on expert analysis, and without offering any reasonable alternative — then it’s the United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy,” he said at the White House. “International unity will collapse, and the path to conflict will widen.”
But a senior administration official hinted at compromise, at least on the review legislation. He reiterated the president’s promise to veto legislation imposing new sanctions on Iran, but said that a previous veto threat on the congressional review bill applied only to the measure as it was originally drafted.
The jousting is likely to continue for months, and pressure could mount on Republican leaders to toughen their stand. Negotiators must turn a framework into a detailed agreement by this summer, and legal sanctions imposed by the United States will not have to be lifted anytime soon, possibly not for years. The agreement is not likely to require action from Congress until the next presidential administration.
But beyond the leadership suites, a more hard-edge response came quickly.
“The Obama administration’s efforts to get a deal at any cost will have a greater cost than the world can bear,” said Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. “If this deal moves forward, the consequences for the U.S. and our allies in the region will be dire.”
Some Democrats hailed it. “We’ve set the stage for a paradigm shift in the country and in the region,” said Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon.
But other Democrats tried to find a middle ground between embracing the accord and undermining it. Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said that he wanted unanimity around Congress’s request for review, and that aspects of the legislation would have to be toned down.
The bill demands that the administration submit the full text of any agreement to Congress, including classified annexes. It would prohibit the removal of any congressional sanctions for 60 days after a final accord, and would require the president to certify Iranian compliance every 90 days. Without that certification, it mandates a quick return of sanctions.
The original version was written by Mr. Corker and Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, a hard-liner on the Iran talks. But Mr. Menendez’s indictment Wednesday on corruption charges, and his decision to step down from the top Democratic spot on the Foreign Relations Committee, elevated the more diplomatic voice of Mr. Cardin.
“The more unity we can have among Democrats and the White House, the stronger U.S. foreign policy will be,” Mr. Cardin said.
In general, the most senior Republicans, while cool to the deal, spoke in measured tones. “In the weeks ahead, Republicans and Democrats in Congress will continue to press this administration on the details of these parameters and the tough questions that remain unanswered,” said the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio. “We will stand strong on behalf of the American people and everyone in the Middle East who values freedom, security and peace.”
The biggest question is not about the congressional review legislation but about whether Republican leaders will try to resurrect House and Senate measures that would impose tough new sanctions on Iran. Both versions have had broad bipartisan support, but their passage could imperil a final deal.
“There will be a move to apply new sanctions or deprive the president of the ability to waive existing sanctions,” said Representative Brad Sherman, Democrat of California and a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. While that inclination is present in both chambers and in both parties, he said, “the tendency will be to vote for or against the president based on party.”
Mr. Obama, announcing the tentative accord in the White House Rose Garden, said the issues at stake were “bigger than politics.”
“These are matters of war and peace, and they should be evaluated based on the facts and what is ultimately best for the American people and for our national security,” he said.
But lawmakers in both parties asked pointed questions about the framework presented. Mr. Corker said that he believed sanctions would be lifted too quickly, and that he wanted to better understand what would happen to Iran’s fissile nuclear materials. Mr. Engel was pleased that Iran’s array of centrifuges would be reduced by two-thirds, and that inspections of uranium mining and milling would last 25 years.
“But tell me why Fordo remains open,” he said, referring to Iran’s underground enrichment site. “Why not just destroy it?”
- http://bit.ly/1NLFTO3
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu