“What meaning is that the worldwide leverage that we now have beforehand used to succeed in this settlement would vanish”, White House press secretary Josh Earnest stated.
Advertisement
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote in March that the goal of going to the Security Council first was in order to give the nuclear agreement worldwide authority that Congress would be unable to override.
But whilst Republicans who management Congress sharpened their criticism, Obama’s prime aides stepped up their protection of the historic deal to prohibit Iran’s nuclear program in trade for sanctions aid. He suggested the White House may believe it lived up to the “spirit of the law”. The deal requires Iran to sharply curtail its nuclear activities, under worldwide verification, in exchange for lifting economic sanctions. Mark-Kirk (R-Ill.), and Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives, have said they see the Security Council vote as an end-run around Congress. “So I think it would be far better to have that vote after the 60-day review, assuming that the agreement is not effectively rejected by Congress”, said Cardin after meeting with Vice President Joe Biden Thursday, according to The Hill.
“Is the president afraid he can’t win over the American people, and his own party in Congress, on the details of this agreement?”
The argument makes some sense, as the U.S. sanctions were grudgingly supported internationally on the idea that it would lead to a deal like the one finally reached.
“So the point is that the sanctions regime would collapse if Congress were to kill this deal”, Earnest said.
Earnest said, “The fact is, if the United States Congress were to successfully kill this agreement, it would have a awful impact on the standing of the United States in the world“. He acknowledged being caught off guard by the decision to move forward so quickly in the United Nations body.
“We’ll remain in close consultation with Congress throughout the review period”, Schultz said.
Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the panel, said he also was distressed. “If the United States is signing onto the United Nations program and later on we’re not part of it, what we’ll do is inconsistent with the U.N. resolution, so it would be better not to have action on the U.N. resolution”, he argued.
Advertisement
– Updated at 3:30 p.m.
