Iranian Nuclear Deal D.O.A.

Obama is likely headed for full-fledged lame duck status by Memorial Day.

Now that Hillary has announced, and, as Paul Krugman points out in his column today, the Fourth Estate will be preoccupied by "endless attempts to psychoanalyze the candidate, endless attempts to read significance into what she says or doesn’t say about President Obama, endless thumb-sucking about her 'positioning' on this or that issue," Obama will necessarily become an ever-diminishing figure from this point forward.

But the mortal wound for Obama will come when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee begins crafting an Iran sanctions review bill on Tuesday. The principal goal of the legislation, as Jonathan Weisman and Jennifer Steinhauer explain in "Seeking Voice in Iran Deal, Lawmakers Are Set to Act," is to give Congress the ability to block Obama's lifting of some its sanctions, thereby scuttling the deal on Iran's nuclear program:

The Iran review legislation is complex and often misunderstood. It would prevent the president from waiving any economic sanctions against Iran for 60 days as lawmakers review a final accord. After that review, lawmakers could vote to approve or disapprove the lifting of sanctions Congress imposed in 2010 — or take no action. The president would then be able to veto that resolution of disapproval.

Supporters of the bill say the measure would not stop Mr. Obama and the five other nations negotiating with Iran from concluding an accord limiting Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for a loosening of sanctions. It would do nothing to stop the European Union or United Nations from lifting its sanctions, or the president from waiving sanctions imposed by executive action. In a phased loosening of economic penalties, a final lifting of congressional sanctions could be put off until after Mr. Obama left office.

An override of a veto on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act would not mean the votes would necessarily be there to override a subsequent veto of a resolution against the final lifting of sanctions, supporters say.

But White House officials say any action could have major repercussions as diplomats try to turn the ambitious framework reached this month into a final agreement by the end of June.

The Iranians would walk away from the tentative deal reached two weeks ago if suddenly in the eleventh hour they were confronted with new conditions and essentially the introduction of a new party, the Israeli/Saudi controlled U.S. Congress, to the P5+1 negotiations, particularly after Khamenei made it clear that Iran expects all sanctions to be promptly removed once a final agreement is signed in June.

The Republicans and their Likudnik allies in the Democratic Party know this. The biggest barrier at this point to scuttling the Iran nuclear accord is overreach:

But the biggest threat to the bill might come from committee Republicans, whose amendments could strengthen Mr. Obama’s argument that the bill would torpedo international negotiations. Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, is expected announce his candidacy for president on Monday and then fly back to Washington on Tuesday to introduce an amendment making approval of the deal dependent on Iran’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist.

Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia, another committee Republican, will push an amendment demanding Iranian compensation for the victims of the hostage taking at the United States Embassy in Tehran 35 years ago.

“As we debate our foreign policy toward Iran, it seems more appropriate than ever that we compensate the victims of the Iran hostage crisis, who were forced to endure unimaginable fear, despair and torture for 444 days,” he said.

This coming from a country that officially acknowledged the role it played in the 1953 coup of Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh, installing in his place the Shah, a brutal dictator.

The important takeaway here is that some sort of Congressional oversight is going to emerge from the Senate. Team Obama is hoping that it will be so bellicose that when he vetoes it the veto will not be overridden:

For now, the White House — which is increasingly realizing that it cannot prevent some form of congressional oversight — must pin its hope less on Democratic efforts to dilute the legislation than on Republican efforts to toughen it so much that it loses its veto-proof support. At least 50 amendments by both parties are ready to go.Continue reading the main story

“The more we see the true agenda of the right wing coming out, which is war with Iran, I think the better it is for us to try and stop this, because I know Americans don’t want another war,” said Senator Barbara Boxer of California, a senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Boxer is right. Americans don't want another war. But she assumes that Congress answers to the American people. It does not. Most know this. That is why Congressional approval ratings are at an all-time low.

Even if Obama is able to maintain his veto, significant damage will have been done. Confidence that Iran is a safe place to make an investment will be undermined given that every current front-runner for the White House is more hawkish on Iran than Obama.

Right now I'd say Obama has a 50-50 chance of maintaining a veto, but that this in no way guarantees a final agreement with Iran. I think the odds of that are looking worse. Saudi Arabia's ongoing assault on Yemen,with the active support of the United States, promises to make the next two months very dangerous.