House Republicans Introduce a Resolution of Disapproval of Iran Nuclear Agreement

On Tuesday, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA), introduced a resolution of disapproval of President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has promised it will get a vote when Congress returns from its August recess, saying in a statement,

Everything we have learned about this agreement has given Congress and the American people cause for grave concern. Iran still has a legitimate path to a nuclear bomb, Iranian leaders and the Obama Administration have expressed major public disagreements on key tenets of the deal, and ‘snapback’ sanctions are a fallacy. What’s worse, at least two side deals have been made between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and, thus far, the Obama Administration has refused to share the text of the side deals with Congress.

“It is clear that this is a bad deal, and the House will vote on disapproval in September,” he concluded.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) also issued a statement regarding the resolution:

As Congress continues to review the President’s nuclear deal with Iran, every member must decide if this agreement truly makes our country safer. Throughout the month ahead, members will have more time to closely study this proposal, listen to the American people, and determine whether it meets this essential standard. If members determine this deal does not make our country safer, they will have an opportunity to vote for this resolution when we return in September.

Yesterday, Peter Roskam (IL-06), co-chair of the House Republican Israel Caucus, said he had secured “enough votes to disapprove the Iran nuclear agreement.” According to Roskam, “218 House members are now supporting…H. Res. 367 expressing disapproval of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreed to by the P5+1 and Iran.”

He said in a statement:

Time is not the friend of this deal. The more time Members spend evaluating this agreement, the more they realize it’s an historic mistake. While the Administration continues to flaunt a false choice between this deal and war, Secretary Kerry said repeatedly over the course of the negotiations that he would walk away from a bad deal. If that was the case, then surely there was an alternative besides this dangerous agreement and war. Congress and the American people believe a better agreement is still achievable, and we can start by walking away from this one. This is why a majority of the House is prepared to vote against this deal. We will do everything in our power to stop an accord that so utterly fails to shut down Iran’s nuclear program.

Royce claimed,

“I do not relish in introducing this consequential legislation. But the consequences for global security from this agreement are too great. This deal gives up too much, too fast, to a terrorist state – making the world less safe, less secure, and less stable.”

There was never any doubt that the Republicans in the House were going to disapprove of the agreement. That was a foregone conclusion.

Up until now, it has been believed the Republicans cannot stop the deal from going forward. A motion of disapproval, however, could keep the president from waving sanctions against Iran, which would effectively scuttle it, and Mitch McConnell said today he is also considering a resolution of disapproval.

Of course, as Politico reports, overriding the president’s veto is another matter altogether, and Roskam’s 218 votes will not get the job done for House Republicans.

Seemingly, anything short of a U.S. invasion of Iran will receive Republican disapproval. “War is the continuation of politics by other means,” German military theorist Carl von Clausewitz wrote. Now, for Republicans, war is just a continuation of war – endless war, and diplomacy an inconvenience easily skipped.

33 Replies to “House Republicans Introduce a Resolution of Disapproval of Iran Nuclear Agreement”

  1. We can take solace in knowing that the Congress has no constitutional authority over the Iran deal. It is an executive agreement, not a treaty. As usual republicans waste tax payers time and money on bullshit.

  2. Someone should propose a resolution that condemns House Representatives for produce resolutions that wast TAXPAYERS dollars. It also should include a provision. That whom ever proposes a wasteful resolution shall be financially responsible for any costs of said resolution to the American Taxpayers.

  3. To hell with what the dumbest political party on the face of the Earth has to say. Right now we have to be worried about dummycrats who are in no electoral danger getting ready to bend over for AIPAC EVEN THE MAJORITY OF American Jews support the deal

    It looks as if Senator Charles Schumer, likely the next Democratic leader of the Senate, is going to sell his president out:

  4. Just like 2010 when dems ran away from Obamacare and 2014 when they ran from the President, it seems the Dems are stupid. If they can’t support their leader, why should the American public? Idiots.

    And do of these fools think about what the US backing out of the agreement affects our strategic partners and those relationships? Of course not! Because the repugs still want to deny anything positive for President Obama.

    And then when everything falls apart in 2016, they will blame the interloper in their white house

    Hopefully, Reid and Pelosi can hold things together and sustain the veto.

  5. Hello!

    Which is why I will NOT be watching that farce of a political debate on Thursday.

    They’re not dumb, my Darling. They’re cunning. Just like the Devil.

    Donald Trump is going to be as tame as a lamb and the rest of the jokers on stage are going to obey the golden rule of their god Ronald Reagan. They’re not going to talk about other members of their cult, but they will definitely take advantage of free air time to predictably bash President Obama and SOS Hillary Clinton for 2 hours.


    Like you said, my Darling. To hell with what Republicans have to say. It’s not like any of them could EVER win my vote anyway.

  6. Hopefully the rethugs are getting all of their children who are old enough to enlist
    in the military and be the first to go to war, they are so eager for our sons to go.Also if Chuck Schumer votes against the president he has no right to expect to be the next leader of the senate dems.

  7. The Republicans were always going to vote against this because President Obama is for it. They did not come to Washington to govern, they came to obstruct. I would bet that most of these lawmakers have not even read the deal.

  8. Excellent comment!

    Exactly my sentiments and feelings about the Republican Party. Their priorities are to do nothing for the people and everything for the rich.

    IMHO, the TP/GOP are an abomination to our democratic way, to democracy and to the world. They should be extricated from everything and anything political both in Washington D.C. and in the states.

  9. Because Moongrim, war is profitable for the war machine known as the Republican party. Also they wish to eliminate all the riff raff in the country.(riff raff) meaning the working class who threaten them
    when their children become educated. So– eliminate education, ship jobs over seas, repeal any medical assistance. Most of all, make sure only the riff raff’s children serve in the military. Kind of like the old Roman Empire, where all the poor did the fighting all the work and never got paid. Serfdom or slavery is their goal.

  10. Whys is America the only country going “Ape-shit” over this deal? Calling it a “Bad” deal? While the governing bodies of the other members of the P5+1 have not declared that this is a “bad deal”? Why? Isn’t this a case where the majority rules? The other countries approved, no? No-self doubting or criticizing over there. Their countries accepted the deal as a “done deal”. Why are we bitching and falling all over to denounce this deal? Is it that without the United States’ blessing this deal has to be scrapped? If it is rejected, what next? The other countries will just go forward with it and we will be sitting on the sidelines? {{{scratching my head}}}

  11. Why are the Republicans and some Democrats against this deal? While the other member countries of the P5+1 not as agitated over this thing? Why are we bitching about this and that? And wringing our hands and sweating the deal? Because Israel says its a bad deal FOR THEM? What’s going on here, for real? Huh?

  12. I will put it like this. 50% are against it because of Israel and politics of going against AIPAC. 30% because of Obama. 10% is the military industrial complex. When you use bombs you have to buy more bombs. The rest is just plain ignorance of the American people who couldn’t find Iran on a map even if you wrote Iran on area

  13. In the battle of smart politics vs. smart policy, the latter loses It’s ironic that in this age of gargantuan money in politics, politics itself, at the gut level, is the more potent mother’s milk of the game. Trump and Sanders’ campaigns have raised only fractions of Bush and Clintons’ hauls (counting super PACs), and yet Trump-Sanders gets all the love, while Bush-Clinton is in danger of breeding a yawn epidemic. By “gut level” I mean emotion, of course. Passions are running high, passions eclipse raw pragmatism, and, accordingly, passions can make a political mess of sound policy. Hence the mess of the Iran nuclear debate — for which I use “debate” as ironically as the present “power” of money. – See more at:


    Murphy: “Because I believe that Iran is less likely to get a nuclear weapon with this agreement than without it, I will support it.”

    WASHINGTON —Today, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East, South Asia, Central Asia and Counterterrorism, released the following statement announcing his support for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreed upon by Iran and the P5+1:
    Read the full statement

  15. New York Rep. Steve Israel said Tuesday that he would oppose the nonproliferation deal at the center of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy agenda when it comes up for a congressional vote in September — the most high profile Democrat in the House to do so yet.

    Israel, who also chairs House Democrats’ messaging arm, said he would also work to oppose the deal — putting him at odds with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), traditionally a close ally, who is personally lobbying members to support the Iran deal.

    “I tried very had to get to yes. But at the end of the day, despite some positive elements in the deal, the totality compelled me to oppose it,” Israel told Newsday.

  16. I was asking the rhetorical- because if we didn’t have such an ‘obvious’ foe like Iran to invade, then we’d have to seriously and I mean really seriously cut back on the Military budget.

    And such is heresy to the Priests of Mammon/Republican Party.

  17. The number of U.S. troops deployed in battle zones is at its lowest level since before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Still, Congress has authorized a 38 percent increase in the war budget over last year.
    The contradiction is the legacy of an emergency war fund, started in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, that has become a favorite Washington way to sidestep the impact of fiscal constraints on military spending.

    The Overseas Contingency Operations account, or OCO, has been tapped to fund tens of billions of dollars in programs with questionable links, or none, to wars, according to current and former U.S. officials, analysts and budget documents.

    This year, Congress added $1 billion for a National Guard and Reserve equipment account the Pentagon hadn’t requested, as well as $532 million for military construction worldwide. That includes a hangar in Italy for a Navy submarine-hunting aircraft.
    – Several billion dollars to transform the U.S. Army beginning in 2004 from a division-based force to a brigade-based one.

    – $351 million this year for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense shield.

  18. Are these useless politicians aware that 5 other countries are involved in this deal? 5 counries who have leaders who actually attended the talks, know all about the deal, and AGREE with the President? Are they representing constituents in this country, or are they voting to please Bibi?

  19. GOPers Hate President’s Historic Iran Speech — Which Means It’s A Success

    Full transcript here. The president likened a vote against this historic deal to a vote for the Iraq invasion:

    In a speech at American University in Washington, the president said that the Iran deal followed in the tradition of the decades of diplomacy that ended the Cold War without a single shot fired.

    And he said that many of the critics of the deal are the same people who exaggerated intelligence and misled the country about the costs of the war in Iraq.

    “I raise this history because now more than ever we need clear thinking in our foreign policy,” Obama said

  20. I learned something today that I had not known, during the 2nd world war Nutty Yahoo’s father was in New York trying to turn the congress against Roosevelt, calling them cowardly. Things have not changed much!

  21. This should be made into ad right now with the coffins of dead Americans coming home from Iraq

    “Just because Iranian hardliners chant ‘death to America’ does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe,” Obama said to applause during his speech at American University.

    “In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting ‘death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They are making a common cause with the Republican caucus,” Obama said.

  22. That’s odd, but last time I checked, Barack Obama was our president not Benjamin Netanyahu.

    Congress is, once again, impotent in the matters of State, except to obstruct, sew seeds of fear, racism… Apparently they know no other way.

  23. They are not impotent. If they can get enough AIPAC whores that are dummycrats they could kill the agreement.

    In addition to Republicans, who have a majority in the House, a number of Democrats have gone on record opposing the deal, including Juan Vargas (D – Calif.), Grace Meng (D – N.Y.), Albio Sires (D – N.J.), Kathleen Rice (D – N.Y.) and Ted Deutch (D – Fla.), the Ranking Member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. And add the biggest whore to AIPAC Steve Israel. That is why we cant win elections

  24. Their strategy of divide and conquer has divided the country to a point of stupidity.
    These either dont’t read or comprehend what is happening outside of US jurisdiction but other countries have determined they will not side with the Congress absent agreements agreed to already. Therefore their alliances will change sides to be against any new changes most likely due to division within US backward thinking as if the US speaks for the entire world community (Russia,China,Iran) can build a unification to open nuclear arms against US. Best believe either country would not feel bad if US felt the effects of a nuclear bomb being dropped over here considering our past history and threats. Followers of oppositions should be aware of consequences outside our borders. I myself believe the next World War will be within our shores, how or when that happens is up for debate.

Comments are closed.