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:

To get more stories like this, subscribe to our newsletter The Daily.

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.

Hrafnkell Haraldsson

Hrafnkell Haraldsson, a social liberal with leanings toward centrist politics has degrees in history and philosophy. His interests include, besides history and philosophy, human rights issues, freedom of choice, religion, and the precarious dichotomy of freedom of speech and intolerance. He brings a slightly different perspective to his writing, being that he is neither a follower of an Abrahamic faith nor an atheist but a polytheist, a modern-day Heathen who follows the customs and traditions of his Norse ancestors. He maintains his own blog, A Heathen’s Day, which deals with Heathen and Pagan matters, and Mos Maiorum Foundation www.mosmaiorum.org, dedicated to ethnic religion. He has also contributed to NewsJunkiePost, GodsOwnParty and Pagan+Politics.