Why is the US Congress boasting about Burjam?
Fars News Agency – US officials have repeatedly tried in recent months to make the Vienna talks conditional on action by Iran, while growing evidence suggests that internal strife in the United States is at least one of the reasons for the timing of the US negotiating team at the Coburg Hotel. have been.
Over the past few months, U.S. lawmakers, mostly Republicans, have sought to impose their political opposition to Burjam in a variety of ways, including by writing to law enforcement officials, introducing plans to force the US government to seek congressional approval, and holding various meetings. Express publicly.
Of course, based on what can be deduced from the US’s 6 years of experience in implementing Borjam, this kind of dissent can not be seen as a full reflection of the real concerns of this group of politicians about Borjam, but rather, they are sometimes part of a broader strategy. They are all pursuing against Iran.
In other words, such oppositions are sometimes more self-serving than seeking other goals. In the eyes of a group of American lawmakers, merely opposing Borjam and questioning its future could limit Iran’s chances of economic benefit from the deal. The group believes that anti-Burjam tools can also be a good bargaining chip for US negotiators in Vienna.
On the other hand, such oppositions apply to members of the Republican Party in domestic political conflicts in the United States. Representatives of the Republican Party know that they can settle the necessary political accounts with Biden in the run-up to the midterm elections by challenging the Biden administration to join the BJP.
One of the pretexts that the alleged opponents of Borjam in the United States are maneuvering these days is a law called “Review of the Iran Nuclear Deal” (or “Inara” for short), which was approved by Congress in 2015; Although Burjam’s opponents in the United States have been the subject of much controversy these days over whether or not the Biden administration’s adherence to Inara, a closer look at the text reveals that the law is one of the mechanisms most designed to overturn Burjam. Has been pursuing doubts about it. The law requires the US administration as a whole to submit any agreement with Iran to Congress for consideration.
In a report, Hill News examined the extent to which the Inara law could prevent an agreement from being reached, and confirmed that members of Congress have no way of axing a possible deal with Tehran.
Barjam in the maze of a law
According to the report, dozens of Senate Republicans threaten that if Biden does not submit any new agreement with Iran to Congress, they will at least run into problems if they do not defeat it, a move that will lead to sharp divisions. Allows Republican lawmakers to vote to formally reject the agreement.
But Democrats are confident that if the government sends the agreement to Congress, they can defeat the formal resolution against the agreement, and say Republican attempts to attack the agreement by other means, such as trying to cut the budget, cannot be controlled by Democrats or Biden vetoes. Leave behind.
According to the report, if the Biden government reaches an agreement with Tehran, it will have to decide whether it wants to present the agreement to Congress, which will then determine how the Republicans will try to block it. Under the Iran Nuclear Deal Review Act (INARA), a 2015 law that paved the way for the implementation of the Obama-era deal, any significant agreement reached with Iran requires it to be submitted to Congress for consideration and rejection.
Opponents of the deal with Iran need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome procedural obstacles.
According to the American media, this could lead to a resolution not approving the agreement, where opponents of the agreement With Iran, they must win 60 votes in the Senate to overcome procedural obstacles. A difficult process that thwarted efforts in 2015 to block the Obama administration deal, and opponents of the deal with 58 votes (Four Democrats and 54 Republicans lost by a narrow margin of 42 votes. Republicans at the time They held 54 Senate seats and will now have a tougher task because they will need the support of more than 10 Democratic senators.
Senator Chris Murphy, who voted against the stone-throwing in 2015, predicted that re-voting would again determine the fate of 2015. “If there is a vote in the Senate, I think there will be no vote to block a diplomatic deal like in 2015,” he said. “I think most people know that it was a diplomatic deal that worked, and Trump destroyed it,” said Sen. Tim Kane, who said the vote to block a deal with Iran was likely to be the same.
According to the report, the four Democratic senators who voted against the 2015 agreement are all still in the Senate, meaning Republicans can find allies. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, then Democrat No. 3, Sen. Bob Menendez, now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Ben Cardin, Democrat No. 2 on the committee; and Sen. Joe Manshen.
Asked whether he supported the Republican opposition resolution this week, Menendez said it was too early to say, “I have to see the deal first and then I can judge.” The Biden administration has lost congressional support for an agreement with Iran. “I do not know where the level of support is or not because I do not think the members know exactly what it means to re-enter the agreement,” he said. What is this agreement? Exactly the same as before? Is different? If so, what is the difference? What do we give?
According to the report, the US government has not yet committed to submitting an official report from Vienna to Congress, where US officials are participating in the eighth round of indirect talks with the Iranians on a path to reviving Borjam. “The special envoy (Robert) Mali continues to inform members of Congress, even remotely,” State Department spokeswoman Jalina Porter told reporters at a news conference on Tuesday. But what I am saying more precisely is that the government will scrutinize the facts as well as the circumstances of any US return to the UN Security Council to determine the legal implications of the cases under INARA. We are committed to meeting these requirements. The president believes a bipartisan approach to Iran is the strongest way to protect US interests in the long run.
In the short term, Republicans may find it difficult to pass laws that impose restrictions on a deal through Congress.
Republican senators, led by Ted Cruz, a longtime opponent of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, wrote a letter to Biden the day before saying they would use “all available options and leverage” to ensure his administration complies with state law. The United States has adhered to any new agreement with Iran. But in the short term, Republicans may find it difficult to pass laws that impose restrictions on a congressional agreement. Asked if Republicans could work to reduce funding for the deal or pass a resolution opposing it, Sen. Kane said: [اما] How can it be approved in the Democratic House of Representatives and in the Democratic Senate?
“Republicans, meanwhile, are optimistic about their chances of regaining control of the US House of Representatives or Senate in November, which could give them more power from the beginning of 2023,” the report concluded. But Republicans will continue to face obstacles, including the need for Democratic votes and Biden’s veto. Instead, they seem to be betting on a long game and warning that if they win at the White House, the deal could be broken not in 2023 but in 2025.
Biden’s approach
Evidence suggests that the existence of such complexities in the return to BRICS was at least one factor in the Biden government’s reluctance to resume its obligations under the nuclear deal. Biden knows that if he wants to return to Burjam, his party’s representatives in Congress will have the tools to challenge his government.
“Biden is a coward,” Jeffrey Lewis, an expert on nuclear non-proliferation issues, said in an interview with the BBC. »
In this interview, Lewis continues: “He (Biden) was politically criticized for trying his luck with Iran, which may or may not succeed, but by doing so he could throw the ball to Iran and give the upper hand. “Give it to those in Tehran who wanted an agreement.”
According to Lewis, Biden feared the consequences in the early months of his entry into the White House and worried that it might appear that he intended to make concessions to Iran.
Several informed sources attribute Biden’s conservatism on Iran to his reluctance to disappoint hardline anti-Iranian lawmakers in the US Congress, and in particular Bob Menendez, chairman of the Senate Relations Committee.
Although a member of the Democratic Party, Menendez is opposed to a nuclear deal with Iran, and Biden’s team feared that if the United States entered the UN Security Council without receiving concessions from Iran, it would slow down or disrupt the Senate election process.
Of course, Iran has stated that US domestic issues have nothing to do with the Vienna talks, and it is up to the US to resolve these disputes and reach a consensus. A few days ago, Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, wrote on Twitter: “Voices heard from the US administration show that there is not enough coherence in this country to make political decisions to advance the Vienna talks. “The US government can not pay for its internal disputes by violating the legal rights of the Iranian people.”
Iran has stated that opposition to Borjam inside the United States, whether it is a goldsmith’s dispute or a real one, is the responsibility of Biden, and it is necessary for the US government to guarantee Iran’s survival, given its past commitment to Borjam.
End of message /