Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
President Obama has said that he’s willing to sign the latest Senate version of a bill that gives Congress a say in any nuclear deal with Iran. I’m glad to hear to that because, oddly enough, I’m pretty much in favor of the current bill. Here’s why:
Congress should be involved in major arms treaties, regardless of whether my preferred party happens to control Congress.
The current bill requires Congress to vote on a final deal within 30 days. No one expects a treaty to get implemented any sooner than that anyway, so it’s not much of a roadblock.
If Congress disapproves the deal, the president can issue a veto. It would then take two-thirds of the Senate to override the veto and kill the treaty.
I don’t see much of a downside to this. If Obama can’t get even one-third of the Senate to go along with his Iran deal, then it probably doesn’t deserve to be approved. And the threat of a suspicious and recalcitrant Congress going over the treaty language word by word might actually motivate Iran to agree to more straightforward language in the final document. It certainly shouldn’t doom the negotiations or anything like that.
A lot of this is political theater, and a lot of it is pure Israel-lobby muscle at work. Still, I suspect it does little harm and might even do a little good. And setting out the parameters of the Senate vote beforehand is probably all for the good. This isn’t a bad bill.
Original post:
