{"id":3631,"date":"2015-01-23T13:02:56","date_gmt":"2015-01-23T19:02:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peaceeconomyproject.org\/wordpress\/?p=3631"},"modified":"2015-01-23T13:02:56","modified_gmt":"2015-01-23T19:02:56","slug":"republicans-stuck-between-two-paths-on-iran","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/peaceeconomyproject.org\/wordpress\/republicans-stuck-between-two-paths-on-iran\/","title":{"rendered":"Republicans stuck between two paths on Iran"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sources say two GOP proposals will both get floor votes in some fashion, and portions could be merged into a final product.<\/h3>\n

by\u00a0Burgess Everett<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Manu Raju<\/a>, Politico
\nclick here for original article<\/a><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Adding to the murkiness is a heightened\u00a0Democratic reluctance<\/a>\u00a0to rebuke their president and mixed messages from the Israelis about what exactly they want Congress to do on Iran.<\/p>\n

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 \u2014 Republican Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Bob Corker of Tennessee, respectively \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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\u2019s nuclear program.<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t want to apply sanctions in a fashion that will disrupt the negotiations,\u201d Graham said. \u201cCorker and I are working with Democrats to not have a sanctions vote \u2013 but when the deal is concluded, if there is one, to bring it forward to the Congress.\u201d<\/p>\n

Asked about Corker\u2019s proposal, Kirk was less than enthused about the prospect of a vote to approve the Iran deal.<\/p>\n

\u201cSometimes we get trapped in minority-think,\u201d Kirk said. \u201cWe think: \u2018How could we lock in another vote?\u2019 Once you have a majority, you can lock in a vote whenever you want.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kirk\u2019s 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\u2019s.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe president wants to put it off, others want to put it off,\u201d Shelby said. \u201cBut sanctions matter. Sanctions are what\u2019s brought along this far. We\u2019re going to move forward on sanctions I believe, from what the leader\u2019s told me.\u201d<\/p>\n