House Republicans Plan To Derail Iran Nuclear Deal By Accusing Obama Of Inappropriately Withholding Details Of Agreement  

Obama Administration Secures Votes Needed To Filibuster Resolution To Derail Iran Nuclear Deal. NBC reported “Forty-one Senate Democrats have announced that they support the Iran nuclear deal,” giving “the party sufficient support to block consideration of a Resolution of Disapproval that the president's Republican foes hoped to bring to the Senate floor this month”:

Forty-one Senate Democrats have announced that they support the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by six world powers and Iran, potentially avoiding what could have been a bitter veto showdown between Congress and the White House.

On Tuesday, three Democrats - Gary Peters of Michigan, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Ron Wyden of Oregon - announced their support of the deal, giving the party sufficient support to block consideration of a Resolution of Disapproval that the president's Republican foes hoped to bring to the Senate floor this month.

President Barack Obama had threatened to veto the resolution if it passed the Senate. By last week, 34 Senate lawmakers had announced their backing of the Iran deal, ensuring that the president's veto could not be overridden. But with the new flood of support from within his party in recent days, Obama could perhaps have no need to employ his veto pen at all. [NBC News, 9/9/15]

GOP Lawmakers Announce Plan To Derail Vote On Iran Deal, Arguing Obama Has Not Submitted The Full Agreement To Congress. In an attempt to “halt the House's upcoming vote on a measure disapproving of the Iran nuclear deal,” GOP Rep. Peter Roskam “is planning to try to force a vote ... on a resolution that says President Barack Obama has not submitted the entirety of the agreement to Congress,” as Politico reported:

Roskam (R-Ill.) is planning to try to force a vote this week on a resolution that says President Barack Obama has not submitted the entirety of the agreement to Congress, and therefore the House should not hold a vote to reject the deal. Roskam is trying to draw attention to the so-called “side deals” that were hashed out between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

[...]

It's a very straightforward approach," Roskam told POLITICO. “And that is the administration has to comply with the law. Until they comply with the law, the clock doesn't tick. After the clock ticks there's a vote. This is not an argument that says this is a bad deal - although I believe it is. This is a process argument.” [Politico, 9/8/15]

Media Reports Parrot GOP Claim That Obama Has Not Given Congress The Complete Details Of Deal And IAEA Agreement With Iran

AP: House Republicans Launch “Last Ditch Maneuvers” To Block The Iran Nuclear Deal. The AP reported September 10 that, as the Senate is expected “hand[] a major victory to” Obama, securing the nuclear deal with Iran, “House Republicans launched last-ditch maneuvers to derail the deal”:

In the House, Republicans had not given up on blocking the Iran deal against all odds. On Wednesday, a coalition of tea party and hawkish Republicans revolted against the disapproval resolution when it started to look like it wouldn't past (sic)  the Senate. They forced GOP leaders to come up with a Plan B involving votes on several related measures: one to specify that the Obama administration had not properly submitted all the documents pertaining to the accord to Congress; a second, bound-to-fail vote to approve the deal; and a third to prevent Obama from lifting congressionally mandated sanctions on Iran. Debate and votes were to begin later Thursday.

The House GOP argument is that the 60-day clock of the congressional review period on the deal never really started, because Obama never sent Congress the texts of two separate agreements the International Atomic Energy Agency negotiated with Tehran. [Associated Press, 9/10/15]

Wash. Post: “A Growing Group Of Conservatives” Support Resolution To “Throw Out The Timeline” To Vote On Iran Deal. The Washington Post reported September 9 that “A growing group of conservatives ... want Republicans leaders to get behind a resolution ... that would throw out the timeline under which Congress is supposed to vote on the Iran deal because Republicans allege the administration is not following the law by keeping secret the details of ”side deals" between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) over how to enforce the agreement":

At issue is whether to go ahead with a planned vote this week on a resolution of disapproval that would seek to scuttle the pact with Iran, where Tehran would curb its nuclear ambitions in exchange for an easing of economic sanctions. A growing group of conservatives, however, are viewing this as a toothless exercise and want Republicans leaders to get behind a resolution from Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) that would throw out the timeline under which Congress is supposed to vote on the Iran deal because Republicans allege the administration is not following the law by keeping secret the details of “side deals” between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) over how to enforce the agreement. [The Washington Post, 9/9/15]

WSJ: “Growing Support” For GOP Plan Arguing Obama Hasn't Fully Complied With Iran Deal Legislation. The Wall Street Journal reported September 9 that there is “Growing support for Mr. Roskam's resolution” which argues “Obama hasn't fully complied with legislation Congress passed in May giving lawmakers power to review the deal with Iran”:

On Tuesday Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.) introduced a measure saying the House should wait to vote on Iran, arguing that Mr. Obama hasn't fully complied with legislation Congress passed in May giving lawmakers power to review the deal with Iran.

The 60-day review period specified in that law started July 20 when the State Department submitted to Congress all documents connected to the accord and ends Sept. 17. But some Republicans have said that the clock hasn't started yet because the administration has not submitted two confidential side deals reached between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations atomic agency that will be policing the nuclear deal. IAEA officials has said they never release the confidential agreements the agency strikes with any country, including the United States.

[...]

Growing support for Mr. Roskam's resolution prompted GOP leaders to schedule a special closed-doors meeting with House Republicans lateWednesday afternoon. [The Wall Street Journal, 9/9/15]

Politico: House Republicans “Believe Obama Has Not Disclosed To Congress” Entire Iran Deal. Politico reported on September 9 that Republicans “are moving toward voting on a measure asserting Obama did not submit all elements of the agreement with Iran” to Congress, specifically “what they call 'side deals' between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency”: 

House Republicans are now resisting Boehner's attempt to bring the bill to the floor, because they believe Obama has not disclosed to Congress what they call “side deals” between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The House GOP is discussing a new plan, which they plan to present to the rank-and-file at a 4 p.m. meeting Wednesday, that would attempt to pass legislation with three separate concepts. They are moving toward voting on a measure asserting Obama did not submit all elements of the agreement with Iran, a concept first raised by Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), a former member of GOP leadership. Second, Republicans are working on a bill to try to prevent Obama from lifting sanctions against Iran. Third, the House would vote on a resolution to approve of the Iran pact. The original plan was to vote on a disapproval resolution. [Politico, 9/9/15]

CNN: GOP Plan “Pav[es] The Way For A Legal Challenge Over The Implementation” Of The Iran  Deal. CNN reported on September 9 that “House Republican leaders are changing tactics on the Iran nuclear deal after blowback from conservatives,” and “calling on the White House to hand over more details about the nuclear agreement,” arguing that “Obama violated the law by not turning over all the details of the historic agreement”:

GOP leaders are grappling with opposition from conservatives who earlier Wednesday delayed the start of debate on a resolution that would block the nuclear accord. Conservatives are calling on the White House to hand over more details about the nuclear agreement.

To get around the sudden obstacle, House leaders devised a plan intended to address conservative concerns by paving the way for a legal challenge over the implementation of the deal. The House will vote on a measure that says President Barack Obama violated the law by not turning over all the details of the historic agreement his administration reached with Iran.

The House would also vote on a resolution of approval on the nuclear deal -- to put the House on record as having a majority that opposes it -- and another measure that would prevent Obama from unilaterally lifting any sanctions on Iran passed by Congress.

[...]

A GOP aide said that this approach “lays the groundwork for a potential legal challenge and takes away legitimacy of President being able to say he used legal process to secure this deal.”

[...]

That date has been seen as Sept. 17, but conservatives are arguing that that deadline doesn't apply because the administration didn't pass along all the details of the so-called side deals with the IAEA. The Iran Review Act also allows Obama to waive sanctions after that date, so long as Congress doesn't vote to disapprove the deal, but since the House is now looking at operating outside that framework, GOP leaders want to make clear that they don't think Obama would have the right to lift them. [CNN, 9/9/15]

But The GOP Plan Is “Cynical And Dishonest” Because It's “Standard Operating Procedure” For IAEA To Make Agreement With Iran That's Confidential

IAEA Director: “The Separate Arrangements Under The Road-Map Agreed Between The IAEA And Iran ... Are Confidential” Like “Hundreds Of Such Arrangements” With Other States.  In an August 20 press release, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said that the arrangements between Iran and the IAEA are “confidential” like the “hundreds of such arrangements made with other IAEA Members States”:

I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work.

The separate arrangements under the Road-map agreed between the IAEA and Iran in July are confidential and I have a legal obligation not to make them public - the same obligation I have for hundreds of such arrangements made with other IAEA Member States.

However, I can state that the arrangements are technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise our safeguards standards in any way. The Road-map between Iran and the IAEA is a very robust agreement, with strict timelines, which will help us to clarify past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran's nuclear programme. [International Atomic Energy Agency, 8/20/15]

Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation: Agreement Between Iran And IAEA Is “Standard Operating Procedure,” And Such Agreements Are Typically Confidential. The CACNP explained that the arrangement between Iran and the IAEA is not a “secret side deal,” but “standard operating procedure” and every such agreement the IAEA has with other countries is also confidential:

Some critics are calling this a secret side deal between the IAEA and Iran; however, this is standard operating procedure, and every such agreement the IAEA has with other countries is also confidential. This was even true during the IAEA's inspections into Libya. While the general public is not privy to the details of the arrangement, it is safe to assume that the United States government has been fully briefed on the procedures.

The arrangement specifies procedural information regarding how the IAEA will conduct its investigation into Iran's past nuclear history, including mentioning the names of informants who will be interviewed. Releasing this information would place those informants, and the information they hold, at risk. [Center On Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, 8/3/15]

Vox: IAEA Agreement With Iran Is Like All IAEA “Agreements With Every Country Where It Works,” Including The U.S., And They Are “Typically Secret.”  Vox called the GOP strategy “cynical and dishonest” September 9, explaining that “the IAEA has such agreements with every country where it works, including the United States,” and “these agreements are typically secret” because “the IAEA wants as much access as possible, and ... countries do not necessarily want the details of their nuclear facilities broadcast to the world”:

This new strategy would allow Republicans to argue in perpetuity that the Iran nuclear deal is somehow illegitimate, without ever actually proving that. It would create a definitionally irresolvable political “controversy” over the deal, allowing Republicans to raise money and hold hearings and go on conservative talk radio for many years to come, making conspiratorial claims about the Obama administration withholding some vital information.

[...]

Republicans' argument is basically this: President Obama promised to send Congress the full text of the Iran nuclear once it was reached (true), after which Congress has 60 days to review before voting on whether to disapprove of the deal (true), but Obama did not technically complete his end of the bargain (false) because he did not send Congress the text of the “secret side deal” with Iran (complicated; see below). Therefore the 60-day congressional review never happened (false), thus the deal is illegitimate (false).

The alleged “secret side deal” is an agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency (the UN nuclear watchdog) and Iran over how the IAEA will conduct certain inspections and verification procedures of Iranian facilities, as well as IAEA investigations into past elements of Iran's nuclear program that may have had a military component.

The IAEA has such agreements with every country where it works, including the United States. Because the IAEA wants as much access as possible, and because countries do not necessarily want the details of their nuclear facilities broadcast to the world, the details of these agreements are typically secret. That is the case with the IAEA's agreement with Iran.

It is not a “side deal,” nor is its existence secret; the nuclear deal requires the IAEA to monitor Iranian facilities, so naturally the IAEA was going to work out the logistical details of that with Tehran. As nuclear experts Mark Hibbs and Thomas Shea explained recently in the Hill, anyone with the most basic knowledge of the IAEA understands that this is how it works, and that this secrecy ultimately helps the IAEA -- and thus the US -- against Iran's nuclear program[.]

[...]

Republicans are now pretending that this is all a big surprise and that they have a right to see the complete text of any IAEA agreements. In fact, there is nothing guaranteeing Congress review over IAEA agreements with Iran. The IAEA would never agree to such a thing (fortunately for the US, which has its own agreements with the IAEA), and neither would the Obama administration. [Vox, 9/9/15]