Congress debates fallout from faltering nuclear deal with Iran

WASHINGTON—Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed serious doubts on Thursday about the looming nuclear deal with Iran during the sixth and final Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the negotiations.

“We don’t know what Iran is capable of,” said committee chairman Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. “I fear the administration may again provide the green light for a slow and measured nuclear development.”

In April, Iran and six other nations released the framework for an agreement, but negotiators are racing against the clock to finalize a deal by a self-imposed June 30 deadline. Lawmakers, citing published reports, worried the framework is growing progressively thin.

“I will not reach a decision as to whether we should support or not support the potential agreement until I have seen the agreement,” said Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., adding that Congress needs to know how Iran’s nuclear program will be restricted and consequences would occur if Iran violates those restrictions.

Cardin said the critical task now is to drill down some of the more challenging parts of the original framework, including the U.S. offer to ease sanctions in exchange for a 10-year pause in Iran's nuclear operations. In a recent speech, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei demanded immediate sanctions relief while saying inspections of military sites and freezing nuclear activities long-term are off the table.

Ray Takeyh, senior fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations, told the committee the pause or “sunset clause” is one of the more troublesome parts of the agreement. He said after the 10-year wait, Iran can develop a full scale industrialized nuclear program. Once that happens, it will be almost impossible to ensure Iran does not misuse its nuclear capabilities.

“There is not a single Iranian official from whatever political tendency that suggests it will not embark on an industrial-sized nuclear program,” Takeyh said.

Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., said he’s keeping an open mind to the negotiations, because “we don’t know what we don’t know yet.” He said there are two ways Iran is going to obtain nuclear power through the deal: by waiting out the sunset clause or through covert operation.

Cardin said his views have changed over the last month. In May his sole concern was inspections and verifications, “but I’m starting to believe the time issues might be the most challenging.”

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said another key component is to figure out what happens if a deal with Iran falters. He said no deal means the likelihood of military action increases, but it doesn’t guarantee war: “I do not believe that the options are: a deal which we think is a great deal or war.”

Corker agreed. He said the consequences for Iranian violations need to have a strong consensus from Congress but that does not necessarily mean military intervention. Corker noted the United States would be better off if it continued to negotiate, “not rush into some artificial deadline on June 30.”

The hearing came amid growing concern about the deal, even among President Barack Obama’s allies. On Thursday a group of experts, including several former Obama advisers, published an open letter saying the deal “may fall short of meeting the administration’s own standard of a ‘good’ agreement,” if current reports are accurate.

“When your close associates are speaking out, you know you’re on the wrong track,” said Rep. Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “The way these negotiations are moving, it is increasingly difficult to see the administration striking a meaningful, lasting agreement that would be acceptable to Congress.”