Republicans stuck between two paths on Iran

Sources say two GOP proposals will both get floor votes in some fashion, and portions could be merged into a final product.

by Burgess Everett and Manu Raju, Politico
click here for original article

Republicans are clashing over the best strategy for confronting President Barack Obama over his attempts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran, as GOP leaders try to build enough Democratic support to override a threatened veto.

Adding to the murkiness is a heightened Democratic reluctance to rebuke their president and mixed messages from the Israelis about what exactly they want Congress to do on Iran.

Two key Senate committees will soon move separate proposals, one to increase sanctions and the other to require congressional approval of any Iran deal. The lead sponsors of those bills — Republican Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Bob Corker of Tennessee, respectively — are racing to rack up supporters and recruit Democratic co-sponsors in what is quickly emerging as a turf war of sorts between the Banking Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee.

In the middle of it all are Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his leadership team, who are closely monitoring the legislative developments. Senior Republicans and sources familiar with the process said both proposals would get floor votes in some fashion and portions of them could be merged into a final product, perhaps one as an amendment to another.

Those sources insisted that leadership will not write a bill and put it directly on the floor, but rather will work out the final legislation there.

Yet some Republicans are starting to take sides. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) seemed to agree with the sentiment from the White House that a vote on explicit sanctions measure could derail the delicate negotiations with Iran. Instead, he said, the forthcoming Corker-Graham bill would place sanctions on Iran only if Congress rejects the final deal on Tehran’s nuclear program.

“I don’t want to apply sanctions in a fashion that will disrupt the negotiations,” Graham said. “Corker and I are working with Democrats to not have a sanctions vote – but when the deal is concluded, if there is one, to bring it forward to the Congress.”

Asked about Corker’s proposal, Kirk was less than enthused about the prospect of a vote to approve the Iran deal.

“Sometimes we get trapped in minority-think,” Kirk said. “We think: ‘How could we lock in another vote?’ Once you have a majority, you can lock in a vote whenever you want.”

Kirk’s bill is expected to breeze through the Banking Committee next week under Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and appears certain to be ready for floor action before Corker’s.

“The president wants to put it off, others want to put it off,” Shelby said. “But sanctions matter. Sanctions are what’s brought along this far. We’re going to move forward on sanctions I believe, from what the leader’s told me.”

Corker, who also backs the sanctions bill, said he believes the matter will be sorted out, though he touted his approach.

“We’re in such a much stronger place requiring congressional vote on any final deal – that to me is an even stronger place for us to be,” said Corker, who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee and sits on Banking. “There is a lot of momentum in that direction right now.”

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) acknowledged that the divergent approaches have caused an “issue” between the two committees but believes it can be resolved. “It’s not an insurmountable problem.”

Indeed, several Republicans said they can see utility in marrying both approaches.

“They’re not incompatible. They’re not mutually exclusive,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee. “I’m in support of both of them. I think they’re complementary.”

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) traveled to the Middle East over the weekend with Corker and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and said he’s “considering” support for the congressional approval measure, though he’s firmly opposed to new sanctions. To Republicans, this illustrates the notion that Democrats may back a congressional approval deal over new sanctions.

Another factor is a mixed message coming out of Israel and the upcoming March congressional address from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who sharply disagrees with Obama’s negotiating stance on Iran. A top Israeli intelligence official Thursday issued a press release that denied warning away senators from more sanctions during the congressional delegation over the weekend, but even hawkish Republicans say they aren’t clear on what Israel wants.

“There’s a difference of opinion in Israel,” McCain said. “[About] whether the sanctions would be helpful or not.”

While Republicans sort out exactly what to do, Democrats are sitting back and mulling Obama’s veto threat. Though Kirk said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) is prepared to co-sponsor his sanctions bill, Blumenthal’s office said that’s not yet decided. And a Democratic source watching the Iran negotiations closely said no other Democrats are yet committed to backing the sanctions bill, although Kirk’s office is working to match seven expected GOP supporters on Monday with an equal number of Democrats.

It’s going to be a tough task.

To the president’s party, timing is everything. The administration has set a March deadline for having a framework of a deal with Iran, and Obama’s veto threat has Democrats reluctant to defy an emboldened president. On Thursday, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough made clear that the White House opposes both GOP approaches on Iran.

“Rather than apply additional sanctions now or to have Congress try in some kind of unprecedented way [to] insert itself as the decider on this deal, we think that we ought to be given the space to make this deal permanent,” McDonough told POLITICO’s Mike Allen.

That means that whatever passes Congress is likely to run into a veto and require 67 votes in the Senate to override Obama. Democrats are struggling to compute how either GOP proposal gets there. Each bill is likely to have its own group of Democratic detractors — and if the two bills are combined, it might push the vast majority of Democrats to vote it down.

“The sentiment in the Democratic Senate Caucus at this moment is one of support for continuing negotiations, patience at least for the near-term because the alternatives are all awful,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “And if there’s anything that we would do that would jeopardize the negotiations, I think many Democrats would oppose it.”