Corker Bill Leaves Committee, Reorients Politics of the Iran Deal

Good - The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted unanimously yesterday to approve an amended version of the Corker Iran bill. The revised bill prevents sanctions relief for 30 days while Congress reviews the final deal, then votes to allow or forbid the lifting of sanctions. The president has committed to veto a “no” vote, and the veto can be sustained by one-third of the Senate.

--“Instantly, the entire terms of the debate shifted. No longer would the administration have to convince a skeptical GOP that the deal was a good one. Rather, critics of a deal would now have to convince enough Democrats to override a presidential veto,” writes Yishai Schwartz for Lawfare.

--“The primary White House gain from the Corker bill is that the extended back-and-forth over its passage successfully sucked attention and momentum from a second, much more threatening piece of Iran legislation: the Kirk-Menendez sanctions bill… As debate and negotiations over the Corker bill have continued, the Kirk-Menendez measure has all but disappeared from the agenda.” http://bit.ly/1DiGRMW

Bad - “This [Corker] bill must still run the gauntlet of amendments and debate on the House and the Senate floors, and over the course of that process it could change for the better or the worse,” notes Daryl Kimball. “The bottom line is that the Corker legislation unnecessarily complicates the negotiation and the implementation of an effective multilateral arrangement... that promises to effectively and verifiably block Iran’s pathways to nuclear weapons.” http://bit.ly/1HsFEpv

Ugly - “The Senate committee’s action puts [the President] in an weakened position as the only leader involved in the negotiations who may not be permitted to fully honor commitments that were made. The nuclear deal is the product of a multinational negotiation with Iran conducted by the United States, France, Britain, China, Germany and Russia. In no other country has a legislative body demanded the right to block the agreement.”

--“Several senators insisted that a vote on the final deal was needed so Congress could fulfill its constitutional duties. But there is no constitutional imperative requiring Congress to insert itself into the negotiations, which are the only effective means to block Iran from developing a nuclear weapon… The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has wrongly and inappropriately diminished the president’s power to conduct the nation’s foreign policy as he was elected to do.” Full editorial from The New York Times here. http://nyti.ms/1CNjrfd

Read the bill - Full text of the Corker bill (S. 615) as reported yesterday by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (pdf) http://1.usa.gov/1NJIlbf

Reactions -

--“Iran leader: We are in talks with ‘the major powers,’ not the U.S. Congress,” by Karen DeYoung for The Washington Post. http://wapo.st/1b30L5w

--“Kerry: still confident US can conclude Iran nuclear deal” http://wapo.st/1IL1ciA

--‏@jimsciutto : After Sen. vote on #IranDeal Sr. Iranian dip. tells me: "We only deal w/the Admin & expect it to deliver by any method it deems appropriate.

About that S-300 sale - “Against all fears, Russia so far has been playing ball within the P5+1, because it was also in Moscow’s interest to avoid a nuclear Iran or a U.S. attack against Iran. The S-300, however, is a different matter,” writes Dmitri Trenin in The National Interest.

--“Moscow’s message is clear: should the talks fail, Russia will not support new sanctions against Iran,” writes Trenin. If existing sanctions are lifted under a deal, “Russia will have strengthened its position as an arms supplier.” Full analysis on Russia’s evolving position toward the Middle East here. http://bit.ly/1IL4YbL

Nuclear Arms Race? - “The US could spend more than $1 trillion (£675bn) over the next 30 years modernising its arsenal of nuclear weapons. It wants to make them faster and more accurate. Other nuclear states are trying to do the same, raising questions about their commitment to disarm. Are we entering a new nuclear arms race?” Read the full responses from the BBC’s expert witnesses here. http://bbc.in/1b38ZKR

Can’t afford it - The Pentagon is going to find itself $10 to $12 billion short for its plan to buy new nuclear submarines, ICBMs and bombers unless it gets a funding boost or changes its policy course, according to comments from a top Pentagon official. Marcus Weisgerber at Defense One has the story. http://bit.ly/1EG6pWP

Budget process begins - The House Energy and Water Committee appropriations mark, released yesterday, adds $526 million to the nuclear weapons activities account over last year’s enacted level. The Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account got a $291 million plus-up over last year. The toplines and full mark are available here: http://1.usa.gov/1FKykRu

Track record - “The advocates of force (John Bolton or Benjamin Netanyahu), disengagement, and unilateralism cannot demonstrate that a military threat produced, or would produce, the end of the Iranian program; if anything, they accelerated the Iranian effort,” writes Gordon Adams in Foreign Policy.

--“The Obama implementation principles may not amount to a doctrine, but they have brought about more progress on halting and, downstream, potentially, ending an Iranian attempt to acquire nuclear weapons than eight years of confrontation, unilateralism, threat to use force (American or Israeli), and refusal to engage.” http://atfp.co/1cw0YP0

Quick Hits:

--“UN nuclear inspectors in Iran to try to probe suspect site,” by AP. http://bit.ly/1D1h48P

--“The Iran Long Game: Bush vs. Obama” by Gordon Adams for Foreign Policy. http://atfp.co/1GKnj8e

--“Here's what would really happen if the US bombed Iran,” by Zack Beauchamp for Vox. http://bit.ly/1H3ywPG

--“US Dismisses Disagreement With Seoul on N Korea Nuclear Threat,” by Baik Sungwon for VOA. http://bit.ly/1JKlDtR

--“Sen. Menendez accepts smaller role in Iran nuclear agreement,” by AP. http://wapo.st/1b31Z0P

--“No, the 1998 Iraq Bombing Campaign Isn’t a Model To Strike Iran,” by Micah Zenko for Defense One. http://bit.ly/1CK7RTl