Eye on Iran: Dems Filibuster Iran Vote

Join UANI           Top Stories The Hill: "Senate Democrats held ranks Thursday and blocked a resolution disapproving the Iran nuclear deal, handing President Obama a major political victory. Only a few months earlier, some Senate opponents of the deal predicted they would be able to muster 67 votes to override a presidential veto. They fell far short of their goal this week in a 58-42 vote. Sixty votes were necessary to move forward. Republicans refused to concede defeat, however, and said they would force Democrats to vote on Iran again next week. 'It will be all Iran next week,' Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said before the vote. 'There are going to be more votes,' he told reporters. 'There will be other opportunities for people to change their mind next week, hopefully after they hear from their constituents. Forty-two Democrats voted Thursday to filibuster the Republican-led disapproval measure and pave the way for sanctions to be lifted on Iran in the spring of 2016. Fifty-four Republicans and four Democrats voted to proceed. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) framed it as one of the most important foreign policy debates of the past decade and suggested Democrats would pay a political price. He called the Democratic obstruction 'a tragedy.' 'This is a deal that will far outlast one administration. The President may have the luxury of vacating office in a few months, but many of our responsibilities extend beyond that,' he said. 'The American people will remember where we stand today.' McConnell filed a motion Thursday afternoon setting up another vote on the disapproval measure next week." http://t.uani.com/1F1Pv73 The Hill: "The House passed a resolution Thursday contending that President Obama hasn't provided Congress with all of the documents related to the Iran nuclear deal, thereby violating the terms of the congressional review law. The party-line vote of 245-186 came a day after House GOP leaders recalibrated their strategy to reject the deal following a conservative revolt. It also came the same day Senate Democrats blocked progress on a resolution disapproving the deal. In the House, conservatives rallied around a proposal from Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.),  co-chairman of the House Republican Israel Caucus, to delay a vote on the Iran deal until the Obama administration provides Congress with the text of side deals between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)... House and Senate Republican leaders have stated since July that the 60-day review period ends Sept. 17. But lawmakers demanding to see the arrangements between Iran and the IAEA argue that the review period hasn't technically started because they don't have all the documents pertaining to the deal... After passage of the resolution stating President Obama didn't provide Congress with all the necessary documents, the House will take up two more bills Friday. One will be a resolution approving the deal, which is expected to fail. The other measure would prevent Obama from lifting sanctions against Iran for the rest of his term." http://t.uani.com/1FBWtuh NYT: "President Obama, in advance of his victory in Congress on Thursday on the Iran nuclear deal, focused on centrifuge numbers, uranium stockpiles and the breakout time to build a bomb. But now, as the agreement is carried out, he will face a new battle over how stringently to impose economic sanctions on Iran. To reward Iran for imposing constraints on its nuclear program, the United States agreed to lift many of the crippling sanctions that have blocked the country's integration into the world economy. But to win over wary Democrats, Mr. Obama promised that he would maintain - and perhaps even increase - sanctions to punish Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses and other 'destabilizing activities in the region.' Many lawmakers have indicated they would like to go further, and they are considering legislative proposals that include renewing the current sanctions against foreign companies that invest in Iran's energy industry... Another proposal considered by lawmakers would seek to discourage Western companies from doing business with any Iranian firm in which the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps has even a minority stake; that would be done by officially designating the group a foreign terrorist organization." http://t.uani.com/1K1Z6d2 Nuclear Program & Agreement AP: "Iran says it has not yet decided how to reduce its enriched uranium stockpile - which it must do under the July 14 nuclear deal it signed with six world powers. Iranian envoy Reza Najafi says one option would be to export it to Russia or other countries. The other, he says, would be to convert it to non-enriched form. Najafi, Iran's chief envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke to reporters Thursday outside a meeting of the agency's 35-nation board." http://t.uani.com/1NtOeIQ NYT: "At Friday Prayer, there was no clear reference to the breakthrough in Congress, although a prayer leader, Ayatollah Mohammed Ali Movahedi-Kermani, speaking at Tehran University, warned the United States that any attempt to alter the agreement would be met with similar Iranian countermeasures. 'America is the same as before, a bullying power,' he said. 'They say the sanctions can snap back into place, and they say, 'The regime in Iran should change.' But they should know that we never accept humiliation.' 'They say the sanctions are reversible; we say our activities are reversible,' he added, drawing cheers of 'Death to America' from the crowd." http://t.uani.com/1F1E8Mi Congressional Vote Politico: "For weeks, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has been penning handwritten, personalized thank you notes to the nearly 150 House Democrats who publicly backed President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. The personal touch caps a months-long behind the scenes campaign by the California Democrat, who has worked hard to ensure the survival of the crowning foreign policy achievement of Obama's second term. And it came just months after Pelosi's relationship with the president hit a low point when she rallied opposition against his push for a sweeping free trade agreement. In an interview with POLITICO on Thursday, Pelosi said she worked hand-in-glove with the White House, pinpointing skeptical Democrats and helping to make sure Obama called them all. It was a marked shift for congressional Democrats, many of whom have complained that the president hasn't done enough over the last 7 years to build relationships. In the end, fewer than two dozen House Democrats ended up voicing opposition to the deal. 'All I was looking for was winning,' Pelosi said inside her Capitol office." http://t.uani.com/1iCAkqT Politico: "It may be years before the political fallout of the Senate's mostly party-line vote Thursday to preserve the Iran nuclear agreement becomes clear. But it's already a defining campaign issue - and like the Iraq War and Obamacare votes last decade, looks likely to remain a stark dividing line in many election cycles to come. Republicans are plotting to make Democrats pay dearly for backing an agreement the GOP argues hinges on an historic enemy of the United States playing nice. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans to return to the floor next week to force Democrats to take more votes Republicans say they'll regret as soon as Iran violates the terms of the deal or sponsors terrorist attacks, which critics believe is just a matter of time. After that will come the attack ads, national GOP officials say. It's expected to be a key cog of Republicans' electoral strategy: some GOP senators are already comparing it to Obamacare in its scope and potential to damage Democratic supporters politically. 'It will be very harmful to their chances,' said National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi." http://t.uani.com/1L6yERv Sanctions Relief Bloomberg: "Since the nuclear agreement between Iran and six other nations was reached on July 14, the regime has been preparing to ramp up its exports and sell that stored oil. A small number of Iranian tankers believed to have been storing crude has left the Persian Gulf in the past several weeks, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Three of those ships have since disappeared from detection by failing to report their location." http://t.uani.com/1UHsugX Reuters: "French firms have fallen behind their main European, American and Asian rivals in reviving economic ties with Iran since a deal to curb its nuclear programme in July, a senior French executive said on Thursday. France's main business lobby group, the Medef, is sending a delegation comprising about 130 firms to Iran, including top companies such as Total and Peugeot, from Sept. 21-23. They will be accompanied by the trade and agriculture ministers. 'This visit is very important for us,' said Thibault de Silguy, vice-president of construction company Vinci and of the Medef, who will lead the delegation to Iran. 'We have fallen behind, so now we have to make up lost ground,' he told reporters. Among countries that already have a lead on French firms, he cited Germany, Austria, China and the United States." http://t.uani.com/1KIQUlj Reuters: "Daimler is planning to resume business in Iran following the country's nuclear deal with world powers, Bernhard said. The accord looks likely to be implemented after efforts by U.S. Republicans to kill the agreement collapsed on Thursday. 'We will revive our activities which we let rest for many years,' he said. 'Iran is a great opportunity for us.'" http://t.uani.com/1OiMv8k Reuters: "Indian refiners have been told to prepare to deposit $700 million with United Commercial Bank in readiness for it to pass on the first instalment of oil payments owed to Iran, two sources with knowledge of the matter said, ahead of the expected lifting of sanctions against Tehran... The refiners -- Essar Oil, Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals, Indian Oil Corp, Hindustan Petroleum Corp and HPCL Mittal Energy -- together owe a total of more than $6.6 billion. The $700 million part-payment will be split in line of the proportion owed by each." http://t.uani.com/1UHoJYE Syria Conflict Free Beacon: "For the first time in the four-year-old civil war raging in Syria, an Iranian combat unit has deployed in defense of the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Several hundred members of the elite Revolutionary Guard have taken position on high ground close to the Lebanese border near the village of Zabadani northwest of Damascus, according to Israeli defense sources. Briefing Israeli reporters Thursday, the sources said the Iranian move is coordinated with the Russians who have also been beefing up their presence in Syria in recent weeks although not yet with combat troops." http://t.uani.com/1K29jWZ Reuters: "Russian forces have begun participating in military operations in Syria in support of government troops, three Lebanese sources familiar with the political and military situation there said on Wednesday. The sources, speaking to Reuters on condition they not be identified, gave the most forthright account yet from the region of what the United States fears is a deepening Russian military role in Syria's civil war, though one of the Lebanese sources said the number of Russians involved so far was small. U.S. officials said Russia sent two tank landing ships and additional cargo aircraft to Syria in the past day or so and deployed a small number of naval infantry forces." http://t.uani.com/1Q6Pe37 Foreign Affairs Reuters: "Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif will visit Beijing next week to discuss Iran's nuclear agreement and efforts to boost ties with China, China's foreign ministry said on Friday. China and Iran have close diplomatic, economic, trade and energy ties, and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has been active in pushing both the United States and Iran to reach agreement on the nuclear issue... Zarif will travel to China on Sept. 15 at the invitation of Wang, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told a news conference." http://t.uani.com/1K24ywk Opinion & Analysis WSJ Editorial: "The Senate held its first showdown vote on the Iranian nuclear deal Thursday, with 58 Senators having declared their opposition, including four Democrats and Republican non-hawks like Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky. The American public is also overwhelmingly opposed, with a Pew poll this week finding 21% approval for the agreement versus 49% disapproval. So it says something about President Obama's contempt for Congress that he browbeat and threatened 42 Democrats to filibuster the vote so he can duck having to veto a resolution of disapproval. The President may think he can spin 42 Senate votes into political vindication, and we're sure he'll get media support for that view. But Americans should read a filibuster as a tacit Democratic admission of no confidence in an agreement they fear voting on. It's also an abdication-and a betrayal. In May the Senate voted 98-1 for the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, better known for sponsors Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) and Ben Cardin (D., Md.), and Mr. Obama signed it. Historically, significant foreign agreements have been submitted to Congress as treaties, requiring two-thirds approval in the Senate. The Administration knew it could never meet that threshold, devised by the founders so that binding agreements with foreign powers would have broad and enduring public support. Instead, it wanted to make a deal with Iran as an executive agreement, ratified not by Congress but by the U.N.'s Security Council. But only Congress can fully lift the sanctions it imposed on Iran, so Mr. Obama was forced to make his grudging nod to the co-equal branch. Now Mr. Obama is violating the law he signed, and Democrats are helping him do it. Corker-Cardin stipulates that the Administration must submit to Congress the full nuclear agreement, including any 'side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.' The Administration ignored that requirement, allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to reach secret agreements with Iran concerning the inspection protocols of suspected nuclear sites, and then failing to tell Congress about them... Mr. Obama may have the votes he needs to block a vote of overwhelming disapproval, but foreign policy legacies are flimsy when they're built on parliamentary tricks." http://t.uani.com/1FBRjOY Dennis Ross & Michael Makovsky in Politico: "As Thursday's Senate vote demonstrates, there is no longer any suspense about the fate of the nuclear deal with Iran. What remains relevant, however, are concerns about some of the key vulnerabilities of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Even many of its supporters have worries about what happens when Iran is no longer limited in the size or the quality of its centrifuges or nuclear infrastructure, particularly after year fifteen. Similarly, both supporters and opponents of the deal are understandably concerned about Iran using sanctions relief to provide significantly more material support to Hezbollah and other trouble-makers in the region. Thus, shouldn't it be possible to gain bipartisan agreement on bolstering deterrence and raising the cost to the Iranians of de-stabilizing behavior in the region? Indeed, shouldn't Republicans and Democrats be able to agree on legislation that would not be inconsistent with the JCPOA but could address the need to create a firewall between Iran's threshold nuclear status and its becoming a weapons state? President Obama stated in his letter to Congressman Jerrold Nadler that 'my administration will take whatever means are necessary to achieve that goal [preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon], including military means.' It follows that, putting in legislation language that would support the use of force in response to an Iranian dash toward a nuclear bomb should be something the president could support. In any case this is critically needed if the Iranians and the world are to understand that force and not sanctions will be the response to Iran's violating its commitment not to pursue a nuclear weapon at any point but especially after the fifteen year period when limits on the size of the Iranian nuclear program are lifted. Similarly, since there is no civilian justification for producing highly enriched uranium (HEU), there should be no reason why the White House cannot accept legislative language that would treat the production of HEU as a trigger for the possible use of force... In addition, we also see a need for the legislation to provide the massive ordinance penetrator (MOP)-and the aircraft to carry it--to Israel to reinforce Israeli deterrence. The MOP is a 30,000 pound mountain buster that would enable Israel to target Fordow, the Iranian enrichment site built into a mountain. Providing it to Israel would have the added benefit of signaling that we mean what we say about preventing Iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapons state... Finally, legislation that provides for select and targeted sanctions in response to a surge of material support for Iran's proxies in the region is a necessary part of a strategy for the area designed to ensure that Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Iranian-supported militias in the area don't gain as a result of the JCPOA. The point is that the JCPOA may block Iran's enrichment, plutonium separation, and covert paths to a nuclear bomb for the next fifteen years. That is the good news. The bad news is that it essentially legitimizes Iran as a nuclear threshold state and, like any deal on Iran's nuclear program, provides the sanctions relief that will permit Iran to do vastly more trouble-making in the region. While the JCPOA will soon become a reality, there is at this point a legislative remedy to some of the vulnerabilities that flow from the deal." http://t.uani.com/1XTnBjT Charles Krauthammer in WashPost: "Congress is finally having its say on the Iran deal. It will be an elaborate charade, however, because, having first gone to the United Nations, President Obama has largely drained congressional action of relevance. At the Security Council, he pushed through a resolution ratifying the deal, thus officially committing the United States as a nation to its implementation - in advance of any congressional action. The resolution abolishes the entire legal framework, built over a decade, underlying the international sanctions against Iran. A few months from now, they will be gone. The script is already written: The International Atomic Energy Agency, relying on Iran's self-inspection (!) of its most sensitive nuclear facility, will declare Iran in compliance. The agreement then goes into effect and Iran's nuclear program is officially deemed peaceful. Sanctions are lifted. The mullahs receive $100 billion of frozen assets as a signing bonus. Iran begins reaping the economic bonanza, tripling its oil exports and welcoming a stampede of foreign companies back into the country. It is all precooked. Last month, Britain's foreign secretary traveled to Tehran with an impressive delegation of British companies ready to deal. He was late, however. The Italian and French foreign ministers had already been there, accompanied by their own hungry businessmen and oil companies. Iran is back in business. As a matter of constitutional decency, the president should have submitted the deal to Congress first. And submitted it as a treaty. Which it obviously is. No international agreement in a generation matches this one in strategic significance and geopolitical gravity. Obama did not submit it as a treaty because he knew he could never get the constitutionally required votes for ratification. He's not close to getting two-thirds of the Senate. He's not close to getting a simple majority. No wonder: In the latest Pew Research Center poll, the American people oppose the deal by a staggering 28-point margin. To get around the Constitution, Obama negotiated a swindle that requires him to garner a mere one-third of one house of Congress. Indeed, on Thursday, with just 42 Senate supporters - remember, a treaty requires 67 - the Democrats filibustered and prevented, at least for now, the Senate from voting on the deal at all. But Obama two months ago enshrined the deal as international law at the U.N. Why should we care about the congressional vote? In order to highlight the illegitimacy of Obama's constitutional runaround and thus make it easier for a future president to overturn the deal, especially if Iran is found to be cheating. As of now, however, it is done. Iran will be both unleashed - sanctions lifted, economy booming, with no treaty provisions regarding its growing regional aggression and support for terrorists - and welcomed as a good international citizen possessing a peaceful nuclear program. An astonishing trick." http://t.uani.com/1K26Lbg Ray Takeyh in WSJ: "A curious defense of the Iran deal is emerging. Some Democrats say that if the agreement is implemented, they will resist nefarious Iranian policies, domestic abuses, human rights repression, and sponsorship of terrorism. In a speech Wednesday, Hillary Clinton pledged that as president, 'I will raise the costs for their actions and confront them across the board.' But these muscular declarations often lack specifics, which makes them appear more as justifications for this accord's deficiencies than blueprints for a different policy. No amount of U.S. military deployments or arms sales can ameliorate the consequences of a flawed arms-control agreement. How would additional U.S. naval vessels in the Persian Gulf address the fact that, under the deal, in eight years Iran could begin operating centrifuges that could give it a capability to break out toward a weapon? How would additional missile defense systems for Israel address the fact that when the nuclear deal expires, Iran would be free to accumulate as much uranium it wishes at whatever enrichment gradations it can justify for nonmilitary uses? How would the sale of additional aircraft to Saudi Arabia improve a verification mechanism that relies on a protracted time table, endless mediation, and physical inspections that might be inhibited? The biggest problem with the Iran nuclear deal boils down to the provisions of the deal itself. Still, a true policy of pushing back against Iran requires a type of activism increasingly abjured in progressive policy circles. Namely, it would involve reversing Iran's gains in Iraq. And that would require not just material assistance but also additional U.S. troops. The dismal shape of Iraqi security forces necessitates U.S. advisers and trainers on a large scale. And so far, those Democrats stressing their determination to contain Iran have ignored its imprint in Iraq. Can a policy of pushing back against Iran be taken seriously if it does not involve changing the balance of power in Syria's civil war? The ouster of Bashar al-Assad, a dependable Iranian client, would require organizing Syria's opposition forces into a cohesive fighting group, solidifying their gains with U.S. assistance (this might take the form of airpower), and perhaps deploying Special Forces. Dislodging Iran's grip on its Mediterranean outpost would require a sustained U.S. commitment involving funds and forces. So far, no Democratic senator, House member, or presidential candidate pledging a robust Iran policy has outlined a credible plan for achieving their goals... There is an inherent contradiction in striking an arms-control agreement with Iran, and this accord's shortcomings are legion. It is difficult to address the deal's shortcomings without adjusting its key provisions. But the pledges offered so far appear more like hazy declarations than real plans." http://t.uani.com/1Kd5lHV Eugene Kontorovich in WashPost: "Many observers have assumed that despite the deep legal infirmities in the White House's Iran deal, there is no way to secure judicial review of it. In fact, there are at least two paths to invalidating any sanctions relief implemented by the president - a lawsuit by a House of Congress, or action involving state sanctions laws. Yesterday a D.C. Federal district court issued a landmark ruling in House of Representatives v. Burwell, upholding the House of Representatives standing to challenge Executive action under the Affordable Care Act. The question of institutional legislative standing is a fairly novel one, and thus this is an important decision. Whether it survives on appeal, the decision creates a major and previously unanticipated opening for a congressional lawsuit challenging the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The constitutional argument would focus on the non-transmission of documents required under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (the Corker-Cardin deal), which would seem to satisfy the standing test established by the district court. Corker-Cardin makes clear that sanctions relief under preexisting statutory authority can only come after a positive vote, or no vote, or an overridden disapproval vote, during the 'period of review.' Since the period of review has not started, sanctions relief would be unlawful. Congress suffers an injury by the president's failure to begin 'period of review.' Thus Congress can take no binding action with regard to the JCPA. This undermines Congress's Article I ability to regulate foreign commerce, and indeed its ability to function as a legislature. By not transmitting the relevant materials, the president is preventing Congress from exercising its legislative authority. That argument - whether ultimately successful or not - may state a sufficient injury under House of Representatives v. Burwell. The President, of course, has broad, but not infinite discretion in the enforcement of federal law. Burwell found a related challenge to presidential enforcement action to be non-justiciable. But President Obama does not plan on merely not enforcing sanctions. Rather, he will purport to formally suspend them - a binding legal action. (One difference is that mere non-enforcement could be reversed by a subsequent president, who could enforce sanctions law against those who violated them even under Obama.) Even if Congress proceeds to a vote, it will have no legal effect, because the 'period of review' would not have started, and the statute only authorizes sanctions relief during or after the 'period or review.' Congress cannot rewrite the 'period of review' definition in Corker-Cardin simply by staging a vote... There is another avenue for standing to challenge the implementation of the Iran deal - indeed, dozens of avenues. Assume the President proceeds, purporting to have satisfied Corker-Cardin, to waive and suspend sanctions under preexisting authorities. But since Congress's vote was not within the 'period of review,' which had not started, the entire exercise will be with no legal effect. Corker-Cardin's freezing of the president's sanctions suspension authority will still be in effect. Indeed, it will be in effect indefinitely. Many states have their own Iran sanctions' laws, and many are are moving to implement or strengthen such. Many of the state sanctions regimes provide that they terminate if federal sanctions are suspended. Such a state may well be sued by those subject to the state sanctions, arguing that the state sanctions are preempted by federal law, on the view that federal sanctions have been suspended or waived. The plaintiffs in such a case would certainly have standing. But as a defense to such a suit, the state could then argue that in fact the federal sanctions have not been waived or suspended, under the terms of Corker-Cardin. Such an argument would be eminently justiciable, as standing generally applies to plaintiff's claims, not to defenses. It is not unheard for the legality of something to be non-justiciable in a direct challenge, but reviewable in an enforcement action. To put if differently, state law can't be preempted by an invalid federal action." http://t.uani.com/1KIPYgZ Eugene Kontorovich in WashPost: "Now I want to examine the substance of the argument that the Administration's non-transmission of so-called 'side deals' between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) prevents the time period for congressional review of the deal from starting, and thus also locks in existing sanctions. The statutory language in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act is quite broad, encompassing 'related agreements' such as 'side agreements.' That is enough to sweep in the IAEA documents. But they are more than than just 'side agreements' - they are part of the deal itself. They are not unconnected, parallel satellite documents, but rather integrated parts of the agreement. Thus not only the letter, but the purpose of the agreement requires Congress to see them to begin the review. First, it is important to understand the role of the IAEA in the agreement. It is not merely an outside actor. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) mentions the IAEA more than 100 times by name. More generally, the IAEA is an integral part of the JCPOA mechanism. The deal is built around IAEA action. Thus the IAEA's inspection and verification processes are built into the JCPOA as triggers for sanctions relief and other actions by the signatories. The JCPOA's timetables for implementation are heavily based on IAEA actions. In short, the the IAEA is part of the deal... So the JCPOA refers and incorporates the 'Roadmap for Clarification,' signed the same day and in parallel as the conclusion of the JCPOA, despite the Roadmap formally being an arrangement between Iran and the IAEA. So there is nothing odd about Iran-IAEA agreements being part of the JCPOA: This is what the JCPOA says. The Roadmap is not a side agreement, but rather incorporated by reference into the JCPOA. Within the framework of the IAEA-Iran 'Roadmap,' the IAEA and Iran entered into subordinate agreements dealing with particular verification issues, most saliently, the Parchin site. The Roadmap is clearly a 'relevant' document under the JCPOA; indeed, it is incorporated by reference. The arrangements pursuant to the Roadmap are by their terms not separate 'agreements.' Rather, as the chapeau to Art. 1 of the Roadmap make clear, the missing documents in question are merely 'arrangements' that are part of the 'context' of the Roadmap agreement. Thus the so-called 'side deals' fall within the Roadmap (and are explicitly adopted by it), and the Roadmap is explicitly adopted by the JCPOA. (See also Annex I, par. 66.). These are not separate agreements from the JCPOA; they are intertwined. Thus the IAEA's arrangements with Iran are more than mere 'side agreements' - they are part of the deal (though much less is required under Corker-Cardin for their production). A side agreement is a parallel document; these documents are vertically integrated... Then there is the argument that the president does not have the documents and that the JCPOA ensures their secrecy. That is indeed a problem, but mostly for the president. Corker-Cardin is a statute, with certain requirements. A non-binding non-executive agreement cannot excuse the Executive from complying with the terms of a statute. So if there is a conflict between the disclosure required by Corker-Cardin, which the president of course signed, and the disclosure permitted by the JCPOA, the former would prevail." http://t.uani.com/1VRDtRW Aaron David Miller in WSJ: "The Iran nuclear agreement looks all but certain to proceed through the U.S. Congress in the coming days. Whether you love the deal, hate it, or are still undecided, the inconvenient truth is that the durability of the agreement and its benefits for the U.S. depend almost entirely on the moderation of Iran's regime and its behavior in the region. In defending the accord, President Barack Obama has asserted that regardless of whether Iran becomes more moderate, Tehran without a nuke is better than a Tehran that has the bomb. It's hard to argue with this. But this reasoning fails to account for three factors that will continue to make Iran a formidable adversary. And in some ways, the agreement-regardless of restrictions on Iran's nuclear program-could make the regime even more dangerous. It is virtually impossible to separate Iran's nuclear weapons aspirations from the nature of the regime, its ambitions in the region, or its view of the United States. Iran's desire to become a nuclear weapons threshold state or maintain the option to weaponize at some point was driven by its desire to preserve its highly ideological and authoritarian character. Iranian leaders are looking to protect the 1979 revolution and create a hedge against regime change by hostile powers-principally the U.S. and key Sunni Arab states-that they believe are seeking to encircle or overthrow the government in Tehran. Iran is driven by a sense of insecurity and entitlement when it comes to regional standing. And Henry Kissinger was right years ago that as long as Iran remains a cause rather than a nation, it will not abandon its nuclear weapons pretensions. Iran doesn't (yet) have a nuke, and U.S. intelligence assessments are that Tehran has yet to make a decision about weaponizing. Right now, the threat to the U.S. and its allies isn't what's in the agreement but actions that fall outside it-namely, Iran's ambitions in the region. Iran isn't a superpower; its allies (embattled Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, Hezbollah, Houthi rebels in Yemen, Shiite militias in Iraq) are pretty weak tea and expensive to maintain. But compared with the weaker foes they face in Iraq and their influence among Shiite Muslims, these proxies can do major damage in terms of undermining political reconciliation and stability and ensuring that Iran remains the most important regional actor in Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria-the areas Tehran really cares about. Now, consider that in exchange for time-limited restrictions on a nuke the Iranian government doesn't yet have, it will get billions in sanctions relief. The exact amount is less important than the capacity those funds give Tehran to bolster its surrogates... The bottom line is that President Obama was wrong. Ultimately, success of the nuclear deal depends on significant changes in Iran's regime at home and its policies abroad. Without such changes, Iran will not give up its option to weaponize. And this agreement will leave Tehran with the nuclear infrastructure to pursue that option should it so choose. Absent some moderation in these ambitions, the next U.S. president-Democrat or Republican-might decide that negative Iranian actions-whether within or outside the parameters of the accord-would be grounds to walk away from the deal's provisions." http://t.uani.com/1OGXPt1           Eye on Iran is a periodic news summary from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) a program of the American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, Inc., a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Eye on Iran is not intended as a comprehensive media clips summary but rather a selection of media elements with discreet analysis in a PDA friendly format. For more information please email Press@UnitedAgainstNuclearIran.com United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a non-partisan, broad-based coalition that is united in a commitment to prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition to become a regional super-power possessing nuclear weapons.  UANI is an issue-based coalition in which each coalition member will have its own interests as well as the collective goal of advancing an Iran free of nuclear weapons.