Republicans in the US Senate kept Trump in the dark about the Iran deal, but want details and a vote

WASHINGTON – U.S. senators from both political parties said Tuesday they had not yet seen the text of the deal Trump administration officials negotiated over the weekend to end the war in Iran, although several indicated that any final agreement would require their approval.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said administration officials have signaled they want to share the text of the memorandum of understanding with lawmakers, although he did not know when.

“Hopefully that happens sooner rather than later,” he said. “But you know, it obviously sounds like they’re not going to make it public until later in the week. So we’ll see.”

Thune said he had heard that the agreement provides a 60-day framework for negotiators to reach agreement on further details, including on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“I think ultimately the goal here is to ensure that Iran ends its nuclear program, and any financial incentives it has should be made conditional on that,” he said. “But we’ll see when we know more.”

President Donald Trump told the G7 congress in Europe that he may hold a news conference in “a few days” to release the text of the memorandum of understanding and appeared poised for a vote in Congress.

“I would like to send it to Congress and say don’t approve it. And I will get it approved. Whatever I say, they want to do the opposite,” he said. “By the way, things aren’t going particularly well for them.”

North Dakota Republican Senator John Hoeven said he believes the plan is to vote to approve the Iran deal at some point.

“I think any time Congress ratifies something, it gives it longevity,” Hoeven said. “You can’t let the next president come in and change it through an executive order. I think that’s an advantage. I think it helps strengthen it.”

Hoeven said he had not heard from administration officials why they had not shared the text of the memorandum of understanding with senators, even in a classified setting. But he said he is more focused in the long term on U.S. enforcement of agreements on Iran’s nuclear program.

“The real problem is that we have something that we can enforce, and that is difficult with Iran because they are not abiding by any agreement,” Hoeven said.

Is the agreement a contract?

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy said he believes a deal with Iran would constitute a treaty and would require Senate approval.

“It sounds like a contract,” he said. “And if it’s a contract, it certainly looks like it.”

This would require mighty bipartisanship, as the Constitution sets a two-thirds threshold for Senate approval of a treaty.

Cassidy added that it appears the administration will need the Israeli government – which initiated the attack on Iran along with the United States – to end its war in Lebanon in order to reach a final agreement with Iran in the next two months.

“To make a deal, it takes two sides. In this case, maybe three, maybe four, because there’s Hezbollah and Israel,” Cassidy said, referring to a powerful Lebanese political party and militant group that opposes Israel. “Hezbollah can just incite it with impunity under certain circumstances if they want to. So you’re telling me, I mean, it takes two to dance, and now it takes four to dance. Can you do that in 60 days? I don’t know.”

North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis said the administration needs to be as crystal clear as possible about what exactly the memorandum of understanding with Iran says.

“There must be a minimum of maximum transparency,” he said.

Tillis said it “makes sense” for the Senate to approve any final deal and said President Barack Obama made a mistake by not letting lawmakers ratify the deal his administration struck with Iran in 2015. This agreement was called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

“I have said repeatedly that Obama made a mistake by not making the effort to bring it to the level of a treaty, and I believe we should do that,” he said. “Otherwise it only has a shelf life of two and a half years.”

Tillis said he was not concerned that Congress had not yet received the text of the memorandum of understanding, but it was imperative that the administration share those documents.

“Trust, but verify,” he said.

“Essentially a surrender”

Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy said he “doubts” that the memorandum of understanding is actually genuine, but if it is, lawmakers should expect that there are “side deals” that the administration may not share.

“If what’s being reported is true, then it’s Iran’s conditions. I mean, it’s essentially a surrender. But I think that’s the only move we can make at this point,” he said. “We have to end this war and stop wasting money and stop killing Americans and civilians and stop driving up prices. So it’s a bad deal, but he’s not going to get a better deal. So we just have to accept the humiliation. But I don’t even know if it’s real.”

Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia said lawmakers needed to see the memorandum of understanding so she and others could “express our opinion.”

“But right now we can’t because it’s not fully available,” she said.

Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member Mark Warner, D-Va., said he had not seen the text of the memorandum of understanding and had not been briefed on it by administration officials. But he believes the government must submit the request to lawmakers within five days, as stipulated in a 2015 law.

“I fear that the details will not be as good as the president is making it out to be,” Warner said.

Legal requirements

Congress agreed legislation In 2015, each presidential administration is required to submit the text of an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program within five days. These documents do not have to be sent to every legislator, but should go to congressional leaders and eight relevant committees.

This submission creates a 30-day review period for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee to hold hearings and briefings.

The law gave Congress the opportunity to pass a joint resolution rejecting a nuclear deal with Iran. The House and Senate would likely need the support of at least two-thirds of members to override a likely veto from Trump.

If Congress were to override a presidential veto of a censure resolution, it would prevent the Trump administration from lifting sanctions on Iran. However, this seems unlikely since both chambers are controlled by Republicans.

A report of the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service says that a joint disapproval entry into force “would not invalidate the agreement itself, but would only affect the possibility of the President easing sanctions against Iran; nevertheless, preventing the President from granting such relief would almost certainly result in Iran’s abandonment of the agreement.”

The law, officially called the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, also paves the way for Congress to adopt a joint authorization resolution.

The CRS report states that “the President could waive sanctions once enacted, apparently even if the review period had not yet expired.”

If Congress takes no action during the 30-day review period, the administration could begin easing sanctions as soon as that period passes.