“Rather than have an honest debate on the Iran deal, the president and the Senate Democrat leader are hiding behind a filibuster. They’re using Senate procedure to conceal their panic.”
Senate Democrats Hide Behind Filibuster On Flawed Iran Deal
By: U.S. Sen. John Barrasso
Sept. 4, 2015
It has been obvious for a long time that President Obama badly wanted to strike a deal with Iran on its illicit nuclear program. The problem is, if you want it bad, you’ll get it bad.
Bipartisan majorities of both houses of Congress disapprove of the deal. They are prepared to vote that way.
Just a few months ago, Senate Democrats unanimously supported having a vote on the subject. Now the White House is desperate to avoid this embarrassment.
Rather than have an honest debate on the Iran deal, the president and the Senate Democrat leader are hiding behind a filibuster. They’re using Senate procedure to conceal their panic.
The administration knows that it struck a bad bargain. Its reluctance to admit the agreement’s flaws means that the American people don’t even know how bad the deal really is.
The administration won’t talk about how much money Iran stands to make because of the deal. Under the agreement, Iran reportedly will get access to $100 billion. Additional money will flow from the sale of oil and other goods. How much, we don’t know.
This administration also won’t talk about the side deals to the agreement. There have been media reports that Iran will collect its own samples for testing at nuclear sites. The White House refuses to answer this charge. We could resolve this issue if the administration would provide the side deals to Congress, as required by law.
Since the deal was announced almost eight weeks ago, Senate committees have held nine hearings. We’ve heard from experts and allowed the administration to make its best case for the agreement.
Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have raised sincere and important questions about the deal. President Obama has been blinded by deal euphoria. He cannot see the defects that are obvious in the plan. He lashes out at anyone who questions him, calling them “the crazies.”
The president has said that those who have scrutinized the agreement and disagree with it are making “common cause” with anti-American radicals. Yet the answers to our questions suggest that his administration was far too willing to make concessions that put our own national security at risk.
In April, the administration said that inspectors would have access to Iran’s facilities “anywhere, anytime, 24/7.” That has turned out to be more like anywhere, anytime Iran chooses — with up to 24 days’ notice.
Under United Nations Security Council resolutions, Iran was supposed to suspend its uranium enrichment program before it could get sanctions relief. In the final agreement, Iran will continue to enrich.
The president said in December 2013 that the Iranians “don’t need some of the advanced centrifuges that they currently possess in order to have a limited, peaceful nuclear program.” The final agreement allows Iran to keep those centrifuges and to develop more advanced ones.
The original goal of ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program was a good one. I wish that the president had stuck with that target and done a better job of negotiating. He did not. I believe it would be irresponsible to support such a weak, naive and dangerous deal.
The Iranians stalled for years on these negotiations. They watched closely as the Obama administration signaled its desperation to strike a bargain. Iran adjusted its demands accordingly and wound up with a very good deal for the radical leaders.
After this agreement, Iran will be a nuclear threshold state and a military and industrial power. It will have the money to support terrorists around the world. It will have the freedom to pursue its nuclear ambitions.
President Obama and his allies should take seriously the concerns of the American people. The Senate should be allowed to have an up-or-down vote to disapprove the agreement.
The president should also rethink his reckless veto threat. He should stop the childish name-calling and come clean about the flaws in his agreement. Then he should sit down with Congress and figure out a way to strike a better deal that actually meets the goals he set from the start.
###