Corker to Kerry: 'You've Been Fleeced' on Iran Deal
GOP senators issued scathing remarks to Obama administration officials defending the nuclear agreement on Capitol Hill.
Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md. speaks as Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., looks on at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Capitol Hill on Thursday.
A key Republican senator told senior Obama administration officials on Thursday that they had been “fleeced” by Iran in the course of negotiations limiting that country’s nuclear program, reflecting the widespread dissatisfaction expressed by GOP senators with the agreement.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker bluntly told Secretary of State John Kerry that he believed the deal between six major powers and Iran would achieve little more than legitimizing the Islamic republic’s quest for a nuclear weapon.
“What I think you’ve actually done in these negotiations is codify a perfectly aligned pathway for Iran to get a nuclear weapon just by abiding by this agreement,” the Tennessee Republican said.. “I have to say, that based on my reading … I believe that you have crossed a new threshold in U.S. foreign policy where now it is the policy of the United States to enable a state sponsor of terror to obtain sophisticated, industrial nuclear development program that has, as we know, only one real practical need.”
Other Republicans were equally critical, while Democrats appeared skeptical but more measured in their comments. The questioning comes at the front end of a 60-day congressional review of the diplomatic agreement that saw Kerry, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew testify in defense of the agreement. In exchange for limiting its nuclear program, Iran will receive relief from economic sanctions.
The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said he’d not yet decide whether he would support the deal and urged his colleagues to “allow those who are directly involved to make their case.”
“We don’t trust Iran. but we got to leave emotion out of this. We got to look at the agreements,” Cardin said. “I have many questions that I hope we will get answers today. I hope those answers will provoke a debate among us in Congress and the American people and help us make the right decisions.”
Corker and Cardin are responsible for the ability of Congress to review the deal, thanks to the compromise Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act the Obama administration signed in May. The law, approved unanimously by the committee, gives Congress the right to pass a measure of approval, a measure of disapproval or do nothing after examining the agreement.
While the bill allows Congress to have the say it was clamoring for, President Barack Obama said he would veto any congressional action that would stop the deal from going into effect. It would be difficult for the Republican-led Senate to muster the 67 votes needed to override that executive action.
“If the U.S. Congress moves to unilaterally reject what was agreed to in Vienna, the result will be the United States of America walking away from every one of the restrictions that we have achieved and a great big green light for Iran to double the pace of its uranium enrichment, proceed full speed ahead with the heavy water reactor, install new and more efficient centrifuges, and do it all without the unprecedented inspections and transparency measures that we have secured,” Kerry said. “Everything that we’ve prevented will then start taking place.”
Corker and Cardin have also demanded access to additional documents included in the deal that have not been made public nor submitted to Congress as a part of the mandated review. That information is confidential between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, and lawmakers Thursday urged the administration to make the information available to them in classified briefings.
Some in Congress were also displeased the Obama administration did not postpone the United Nations Security Council vote on the deal until after Congress had completed its review. The vote went ahead Monday, with the Security Council unanimously approving it.
Presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., slammed the agreement for rewarding Iran despite its continued human rights violations and continued detention of American citizens.
Rubio appealed to his Democratic colleagues to reject the deal and asserted that if it does go into effect, the next president is under no moral or legal obligation to uphold it.
Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, said he believed the administration had been “bamboozled” by Iran. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said he was “highly concerned” by the deal.
Several Democrats were more measured in their responses, including Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. She chided her colleagues for what she called “disrespectful” language directed at the witnesses. The senator listed a number of U.S. allies that support the deal, and said that despite Israel’s opposition the nuclear agreement would strengthen U.S.-Israeli relations.
Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said the deal meets the “scientific rigors” needed to prevent Iran from enriching enough uranium to build a bomb. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said by his review, the agreement puts the U.S. and its allies in a “dramatically better position” for 15 years under the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activity.
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., argued that if the deal does not go into effect, the international sanctions regime will collapse and Iran will resume its nuclear activities unmonitored.
“This isn’t a ultimately a referendum. This a choice,” Murphy said. “If you reject this deal, then you’ve got to be pretty apocalyptic about how badly this deal will go down if you accept those broad parameters as the alternative.”
