Say Something Nice or Nothing at All
The Iran deal has more support than the alternatives; Congress should either approve it or stop fighting it.
Give the people what they want.
The old adage, "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all," fits Congress' review of the nuclear agreement with Iran, for reasons related more to security and democracy than civility. Given that Congress is highly unlikely to approve the accord, then taking no action – through the filibuster by Democrats in the Senate and a possible outcome of division among Republicans in the House – would be more responsible for national security and more responsive to public opinion than voting against the deal.
Congress has until Sept. 17 to review the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and approve it, reject it or take no action. All Republicans and most Democrats in Congress agreed with the Obama administration on Congressional review by these rules, in part because they thought the American people should have a voice in such an important policy decision.
What do the American people want Congress to do? Traditional polls give contradictory answers. Some national samples, swing states surveys and polls of key constituencies show majority support for the deal, while others find majority opposition. Support for the deal is usually higher when respondents are given basic information about its terms, rather than just being asked whether or not they like the "nuclear deal with Iran." But even with basic information, nearly half of respondents in a recent CBS poll said that they did not know enough yet to approve or disapprove of the agreement.
[READ: Attempt to Block Iran Nuclear Deal Fails in Senate]
The University of Maryland's Program on Public Consultation has developed a new way to assess what a representative sample of American voters wants their members of Congress to do about a complex and controversial policy issue, after they are given a briefing and hear arguments from both sides of the debate. These policymaking simulations are vetted for accuracy and balance by Congressional staffers and experts on both sides, so respondents assess whatever participants in the actual Congressional debate consider their strongest arguments for their preferred policy outcome and against one or more policy alternatives.
The Center for International and Security Studies at the Maryland School of Public Policy has partnered with the program to do policymaking simulations at key points during the negotiations and after the Iran deal was announced. In our new study, the 700 registered voters in our "Citizen Cabinet" were briefed on the terms of the deal, then asked to consider a series of critiques and rebuttals. They were also given pro and con arguments for three alternatives to approving the Iran deal: trying to reopen negotiations and get a "better deal"; trying to increase sanctions until the people of Iran demand an end to uranium enrichment; or using military threats and force to stop Iran's worrisome nuclear activities.
[SEE: Political Cartoons on Congress]
Members of our Citizen Cabinet had some serious concerns about any type of nuclear cooperation with Iran, but ultimately 55 percent wanted Congress to approve the deal. Sizeable majorities thought that most of the critiques were at least "somewhat convincing," but nearly as many found the rebuttals convincing. In contrast to simulations conducted during the negotiations, where large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans preferred negotiating an agreement to imposing more sanctions, 77 percent of Democrats now recommend approving the Iran deal and 65 percent of Republicans recommend rejecting it. In earlier simulations, the majority of support for a diplomatic resolution was smallest among independents, but now three in five independents support it (61 percent).
Participants who wanted Congress to reject the nuclear deal could not agree on a better way to address concerns about Iran's nuclear program. Trying to reopen negotiations – the alternative most commonly offered by Congressional critics – was favored by only 14 percent. That group tended to be much more optimistic than everyone else in the Citizen Cabinet about the likelihood that the United States' negotiating partners would be willing to try again after Congress rejected the deal. Likewise, the 23 percent who favored tightening sanctions was more optimistic than the sample as a whole that other countries would agree not to do business with Iran if Congress did not approve the deal. (Eighty-two percent of proponents thought it likely, compared with a majority of the whole sample who thought it unlikely.) Support for the military option was very low (7 percent), and respondents found the arguments against threats and use of force to be much more convincing than those in favor of that option. Seventy-two percent concurred with arguments that this course of action would be "extremely dangerous," while 81 percent doubted that military threats would make Iran more willing to give up its enrichment program and allow anytime/anywhere inspections.
[READ: Iran Nuclear Deal Will Be an Issue in 2016 and Beyond]
If members of Congress want to give voice to informed public opinion, then they should think seriously about voting to approve the Iran deal, despite lingering concerns, because this option received clear majority support, and far more than any of the alternatives. Those who still plan to vote against the agreement – or who want so "strengthen" it by passing additional legislation that would contradict key parts of the agreement – should explain how they would persuade the rest of the world to impose more sanctions or resume negotiations after Congress rejected the deal and why they think more sanctions or military threats would make Iran finally agree to demands that it always rejected before. If they can neither approve the deal nor convince a majority of their colleagues and constituents to support a realistic alternative, then the most responsible option is to take no action.
Taking no action by Sept. 17 lets Congress wait and see if Iran carries out all of the nuclear promises it has made in the deal. If the International Atomic Energy Agency certifies that Iran has done so, President Barack Obama is free to suspend U.S. sanctions that relate to its nuclear program (but not those tied to its human rights record or support for terrorist groups). After 10 years of full Iranian compliance, Congress would get to decide whether or not the nuclear sanctions should be permanently lifted. In the meantime, Congress can subject the alternative courses of action to the same level of scrutiny they are giving to the deal.
