Iran dealObama wins: Iran deal opponents cannot override Presidential veto
The Obama administration has won a major victory yesterday (Wednesday) when Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) announced she would support the nuclear agreement reached by the P5+1 and Iran. She is the 34th Democrat supporting the accord, thus giving the administration enough votes to sustain a presidential veto of a Senate vote of disapproval. It takes sixty-seven senators to override a presidential veto, but with thirty-four Democrats now supporting the accord, opponents of the agreement can no longer reach the required veto-overriding number. It is also not clear that there will be a vote of disapproval in the Senate. To have a vote of disapproval brought the floor, the fifty-four Senate Republicans must persuade six Democrats to support cloture, that is, a motion to bring debate to an end so a vote can take place. It requires sixty senators to vote to end debate and bring a vote to the floor, and so far only two Democrats – Chuck Schumer of New York and Bob Menendez of New Jersey – have announced their opposition to the agreement, leaving opponents of the accord four votes short of a successful cloture motion. If no such vote takes place, there would be no need for a presidential veto.
The Obama administration has won a major victory yesterday (Wednesday) when Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) announced she would support the nuclear agreement reached by the P5+1 and Iran. She is the 34th Democrat supporting the accord, thus giving the administration enough votes to sustain a presidential veto of a Senate vote of disapproval.
It takes sixty-seven senators to override a presidential veto, but with thirty-four Democrats now supporting the accord, opponents of the agreement can no longer reach the required veto-overriding number.
It is also not clear that there will be a vote of disapproval in the Senate. To have a vote of disapproval brought the floor, the fifty-four Senate Republicans must persuade six Democrats to support cloture, that is, a motion to bring debate to an end so a vote can take place. It requires sixty senators to vote to end debate and bring a vote to the floor, and so far only two Democrats – Chuck Schumer of New York and Bob Menendez of New Jersey – have announced their opposition to the agreement.
Opponents of the accord are thus four votes short of a successful cloture motion, and with more and more Democrats over the last few days coming out in favor of the agreement, it is not certain the opponents of the accord would have the sixty votes required to end debate and vote on a disapproval.
If no such vote takes place, there would be no need for a presidential veto.
“Some have suggested we reject this deal and impose unilateral sanctions to force Iran back to the table. But maintaining or stepping up sanctions will only work if the sanction coalition holds together,” Mikulski said in a statement.
“It’s unclear if the European Union, Russia, China, India and others would continue sanctions if Congress rejects this deal. At best, sanctions would be porous, or limited to unilateral sanctions by the U.S.”
“No deal is perfect, especially one negotiated with the Iranian regime. I have concluded that this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the best option available to block Iran from having a nuclear bomb,” Mikulski said. “For these reasons, I will vote in favor of this deal.”
Mikulski’s decision came a day after Senators Chris Coons (D-Delaware) and Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania) announced their support for the deal (see “Iran nuclear deal close to clearing last hurdle as more Senate Democrats announce support,” HSNW, 2 September 2015).
The New York Times reports that despite the continuing acrimony on Capitol Hill, even some of the accord opponents now recognize that the other nations who were involved in the 13-months negotiations — Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia, and especially Iran — would refuse to renegotiate the agreement even if Congress formally rejected it.
Supporters of the accord argue that a rejection of the deal by the United States would lead to the worst possible outcome: Iran would benefit from the lifting of the crippling economic sanctions by all countries except the United States, while being completely unconstrained in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Even supporters of the agreement acknowledge that there is no public enthusiasm for the agreement, and that in states with large Jewish populations there are worries about the consequences of the agreement for Israel’s security and regional stability – concerns stoked by a multi-million dollar media campaign against the agreement which pro-Israel groups such as AIPAC have launched.
Republicans remain opposed to the deal but have now resigned themselves to its inevitability. Senator Bob Corker (R-Tennessee), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is now pleading with Democrats at least not to filibuster the resolution of disapproval so it can be out to a final up-or-down vote on the floor, even if it will be vetoed by the president, who now has the votes to sustain the veto.
Supporters of the deal do not mince words in claiming victory. “After a great national debate that has taken place over the past two months, rational argument, solid analysis and sober reflection have won over wild exaggeration, scaremongering and a flood of money,” Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, a Jewish pro-Israel group that supports the nuclear deal, told the Times.
“Supporters of the agreement, including J Street, were vastly outspent by opponents — but almost every lawmaker who began this debate undecided and was willing to listen to both sides ended up supporting the deal.”
