The nuclear deal with Iran outlined by President Obama earlier this month remains a contentious issue in Washington as Congress eyes a vote on the agreement.According to President Obama, the deal aims to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon through several steps described in a 100-page plus document. Iran’s 20,000 centrifuges, which enrich uranium, would drop to about 6,100 for the next 10 years under the deal. While Iran has agreed to reduce its uranium stockpile by 98 percent, it can still enrich what it has to a lower level than what’s needed for a weapon.
Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, joined in a discussion at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Wednesday, hours before a closed-door Senate briefing. A member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Murphy has not come out in full support of the deal.
“My own personal hesitancy to formally endorse this agreement is due to my need to make sure the inspections are actually of the exact nature that the administration claims,” Murphy said. “This is the most important component of the deal and I need to know it backward and forward before I formally signal my support. But our standard of review for the inspections regime is not and cannot be ‘anytime and anywhere.’”
Murphy says he questions what could happen at suspected Iranian nuclear sites during the 24 days after inspectors give notice of an upcoming visit. The deal was brokered by the U.S., Britain, Germany, France, China, Russia and Iran. Some Congressional Republicans and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are among those who have railed against the agreement. Democrats like Senator Chuck Schumer of New York have also been tepid. In March, freshman Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik of New York’s 21st district joined 366 other House members in signing a letter to President Obama outlining what they think would be a good agreement. Stefanik says the deal paves the way for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. She says the administration shouldn’t have been so desperate to reach an agreement, calling Obama’s foreign policy a failed one.
“A good deal would have completely degraded their nuclear weapons capability,” Stefanik said. “It would have…instead of the snapbacks on economic sanctions which doesn’t work, it would have phased in the list of sanctions so it’s not an immediate complete list.”
By ending sanctions from the other nations involved and ceasing American economic restrictions, the deal opens Iran’s ability to get non-nuclear military weapons, which Murphy says is a concern.
“If I ultimately come out as a very vocal supporter of this agreement I’m also not going to deny that there are short-term consequences, one of which may be increased support for Hezbollah that will present problems for the United States and our allies,” said Murphy.
Democratic Congressman Paul Tonko of New York’s 20th district says he is still going through the details, but contends the deal reduces Iran’s ability to get nuclear weapons, which is what he calls the ultimate goal.
“I think the world is made safer, certainly the Mideast is made safer by the restrictions on Iran,” said Tonko.
Stefanik says the deal fuels instability in the region, weakening Israel and the United States and its allies.
“We need a stronger commander-in-chief who is not putting the United States in a position of weakness around the world today,” Stefanik said. “If you look at what’s happening at the end of this administration under President Obama, the rise of ISIS, what’s happening in Russia and Ukraine…he consistently prioritizes reaching out to our adversaries as opposed to reaching out and building those relationships with our allies.”
Congress is in the midst of a 60-day review of the deal while President Obama can veto a resolution of disapproval. Congress would then need a two-thirds majority in each house to override a veto. Calling the upcoming debate one of the most impactful and historic in recent memory, Murphy says Washington has a long history of being titled toward military action instead of diplomacy.
“The scope of human history tells us that diplomacy is not weakness,” Murphy said. “It is the epitome of strength. If this deal stops Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon then Congress should support it. But we shouldn’t run from the possibility that our approval of it will also be a more general victory for non-kinetic American power and making the playing field for the next diplomatic agreement just a little less titled.”
