Israel Matzav

How an Obama veto on Iran could be overridden

Jennifer Rubin argues that an Obama veto of a resolution of disapproval of his sellout to Iran could - and maybe even will - be overridden.

Undecided Democrats in the House and Senate will determine the outcome on the Iran deal. To the chagrin of the White House, they are nowhere near lining up enough votes to sustain a presidential veto. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) will deliver a speech on Tuesday, one that critics of the deal expect will announce his disapproval and lay out the arguments against the deal.

What is going to sway fence-sitting Democratic lawmakers?

The intellectual argument in favor of the deal on the merits has in essence collapsed. A Swiss cheese inspection regime, a snapback mechanism that ends Iran’s obligations under the deal, the lifting of the arms and missile embargoes and leaving Iran with Fordow and the rest of its nuclear infrastructure are not what the administration was promising as a “good” deal. The overall structure of the deal — Iran gets sanctions lifted upfront, inspections are weak and the remedies for violation are exceptional — makes sense only if you believe Iran has “changed” (not even President Obama says that), will not use every opportunity to cheat and will not use sanctions money to aid its quest for regional hegemony.

So why aren’t Democrats lining up to vote no? As a preliminary matter, let me say that many may have already decided to vote no, but seeing the assault on Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), they are going to wait until the end to cast their vote, figuring there is safety in numbers from White House wrath.

The “this deal or war” argument is the administration’s last straw, but that makes little sense. To begin with, this administration is not about to go to war. It sees Iran as a new regional power, remember. Moreover, the idea that Iran would dash to make a bomb if Congress votes no (thereby compelling U.S. or Israeli action) makes no sense, Robert Satloff explains:

While it’s impossible to predict with certainty how Iranian leaders would react to congressional disapproval of the agreement, I’d argue chances are high that they would follow through on their commitments anyway, because the deal is simply that good for Iran. After Iran fulfills its early obligations, all United Nations and European Union nuclear-related sanctions come to an end. They aren’t just suspended like U.S. sanctions — they are terminated, presenting Iran with the potential for huge financial and political gain.

The “deal or war” thesis propounded by supporters of the agreement suggests that Iran, in the event of U.S. rejection of the deal, would prefer to bypass that financial and political windfall and instead put its nuclear program into high gear, risking an Israeli and American military response.

Well, at least an Israeli response, since the risk Obama will act is minimal.

That all sounds as good as can be expected, but truthfully I feel like I need a scorecard to know what's going on - who's committed to what and who is not committed at all - and I'd like to see some proof that the Democrats who are sitting on the sidelines really are going to vote with us when push comes to shove.

There's much more. Read the whole thing.  

Labels: Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Robert Menendez, United States Senate

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:39 PM