Congressional oversight can avoid bad deal on Iran

In a rare demonstration of bipartisanship, majorities of both Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives have voted in favor of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which allows Congress to review a final agreement with Iran. The bill is headed to President Barack Obama’s desk.

The legislation means that Congress now will have a month after any deal with Iran is finalized to signal its approval or disapproval. If both chambers vote in disapproval, the president will have the option of vetoing that disapproval, at which point Congress will have a chance to override the veto. This assertion of Congress’ prerogatives is not perfect, but it is much better than a situation in which President Obama simply could declare final an executive agreement in the absence of any congressional oversight.

The Senate and House votes on the bill are a sign that lawmakers from both parties are alarmed by the details of the emerging agreement. It more closely adheres to Iran’s red lines than our own.

The Obama administration originally committed to preventing Iran from having “the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon” but now will allow Iran to be a nuclear threshold state, one year away from a nuclear bomb for the first decade of the deal. Top experts and veterans of the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog have told Congress that one year is simply too short to detect and effectively respond to Iranian violations — and that the current deal’s breakout time may fall short of a year due to concessions to Iran on research and development of new technology.

Even more dangerous, most of the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will expire in 10 to 15 years, after which Iran will be able to acquire an industrial-sized enrichment capacity. President Obama recently told an interviewer that, at that point, Iran would have a breakout time of close to zero — it will be able to go nuclear when it decides to.

Washington used to insist on a full suspension of uranium enrichment, but instead Iran now will be allowed to keep 5,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. We used to insist that the Iranians shut down their underground military enrichment bunker at Fordow, but instead Iran now will be allowed to keep 1,000 centrifuges spinning there. We used to insist that Iran fully disclose its military-related nuclear activities up front, but instead Iran will be able to put off coming clean on its violations until after sanctions relief is granted.

We used to insist that Iran meet its international obligations to halt ballistic missile development, but they’re not even part of the negotiations anymore.

Having given up on dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, the administration is putting its faith on the ability of inspections to deter and detect an Iranian violation. But the inspections that the emerging deal proposes are not sufficient to catch the Iranians cheating, and we won’t have enough time to respond even if we do catch them.

A deal with Iran should serve long-term American interests, not simply pass off the problem of a nuclear-armed Iran to another administration. Sanctions should be lifted only after Iran meets its obligations, so as not to allow the regime to pocket billions of dollars without honoring the agreement. And a deal must rein in Iran’s hegemonic ambitions and reassure American allies, not leave them more vulnerable.

The stakes are high. A weak deal will allow Iran to become a nuclear threshold state, and the Iranians will redouble their expansionist efforts and support for terrorism. But a strong deal would bolster U.S. national security, reinvigorate relations with our allies in the region and enhance American leadership around the world.

The Senate and House votes were a crucial step in providing lawmakers with a voice in ensuring that America will not be bound by a weak deal. The president should sign the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.

Former U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., is a board member of the Israel Project.