Seite wählen

If the president does not provide such a 90-day certificate of compliance or has determined that Iran has materially violated and not cured an agreement, legislation reintroducing legal sanctions against Iran introduced within 60 calendar days of such an event will be eligible for expedited review. The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (INARA) (H.R. 1191, Pub.L 114-17) is a bill passed by the U.S. Congress in May 2015 that gives Congress the right to review any agreement reached as part of the P5+1 talks with Iran aimed at preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. (Para. 2) This bill amends the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to require the president to transmit to Congress within five days of reaching a deal with Iran over Iran`s nuclear program: WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to pass a bill that gives Congress the right to review and possibly reject an international nuclear deal with Iran. On February 27, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC), introduced the Iran Nuclear Deal Review Act of 2015, p. 615, for himself and 11 co-sponsors, led by Bob Menendez (D-NJ), a member of the SFRC minority. A companion bill, p. 625, was introduced by Senator McConnell on March 3 as part of the clause 14 process.

The expedited land procedures contained in this bill go beyond those commonly used in matters such as motions of disapproval regarding a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement or a U.S. arms sale. Section (e)(7)(E) of the Corker-Menendez Act even restricts debate in the Senate on a veto message. There is no need for all this pre-planned haste, and senators should think twice before accepting it. In the event that the president ultimately eases sanctions against Iran, the law also requires the president to report regularly to Congress on Iran`s compliance with the nuclear deal and provides for an expedited congressional review of the reintroduction of sanctions in the event of Iran`s non-compliance. The law leaves intact sanctions against Iran in connection with Iran`s support for terrorism, human rights violations and the ballistic missile program. As I have explained in previous articles, the „comprehensive solution“ that could be found in June would be a non-binding agreement (i.e. non-binding under international law).

The Obama administration appears to intend to use the comprehensive solution as the basis for a Security Council resolution that would lift UN sanctions against Iran. The president would also exercise his power from Congress to suspend or lift U.S. sanctions. These US sanctions are at the heart of INARA. Section 135(a) of the bill requires the president, no later than five days „after entering into an agreement with Iran on Iran`s nuclear program,“ to provide relevant congressional committees with the full text and annexes of the agreement, a „verification report,“ and a certificate (with some details) that the agreement serves U.S. interests. One question here is the meaning of „an agreement with Iran.“ Is it referring to the framework agreement expected on 31 March or to the final agreement of 30 June? I guess it is the last one, because the bill will only be considered once the first one is to be completed. But the bill could be much clearer in terms of the exact „deal“ it refers to, especially since (as Sanger and Gordon report this morning in the NYT) various agreements of various forms are at stake. In the current state of the bill, one can imagine an executive lawyer concluding that some aspects of the „deal“ with Iran are not an „agreement“ incorporated into the bill. A measure that involves relief from legal sanctions by the United States under an agreement or the Joint Plan of Action: The President may not lift, suspend, reduce, exempt, or otherwise restrict the application of legal sanctions against Iran, or refrain from applying legal sanctions under an agreement before and during the period of consideration by Congress. Senators should look very carefully at the Corker-Menendez bill. Do they really want to send a message to Tehran that the president might not be able to fulfill his commitments? Do they really want to advance the objectives by including support for terrorism in the list of reasons for the reintroduction of sanctions? The Corker-Menendez Act will jeopardize both negotiations and the international sanctions regime; it does not deserve support.

The bill delays U.S. compliance with an agreement by up to 65 days. The 24-page bill for INARA essentially does five things: (1) requires the president to send the text of the Iran deal and related documents to the relevant congressional committees; (2) Requires the President to report to Congress with certain assessments (on audit and others); (3) Establishes a 60-day review period during which the President may not exercise his power to waive sanction and Congress (possibly) has time to limit that power after deliberation; (4) establishes various reporting obligations on Iran`s compliance with the agreement; and (5) paves the way for swift congressional action to reintroduce sanctions if Iran violates the agreement. The External Relations Committees shall hold hearings and briefings to examine an agreement during the 30-day period following the transmission of the agreement by the Chairman. As mentioned in our previous summary, the law requires the president to submit to Congress any final deal related to Iran`s nuclear program and would prevent the president from easing sanctions against Iran while Congress reviews the deal. Congress would have 30 days to pass a resolution that approves or disapproves of the agreement. The bill provides for a presidential veto on a resolution of disapproval and would prevent the president from easing sanctions for 10 days after such a veto. .