NATIONAL EDITORIALS

April 14

Wall Street Journal on Obama's one-man nuclear deal:

President Obama says he wants Congress to play a role in approving a nuclear deal with Iran, but his every action suggests the opposite. After months of resistance, the White House said Tuesday the President would finally sign a bill requiring a Senate vote on any deal — and why not since it still gives him nearly a free hand.

Modern Presidents have typically sought a Congressional majority vote, and usually a two-thirds majority, to ratify a major nuclear agreement. Obama has maneuvered to make Congress irrelevant, though bipartisan majorities passed the economic sanctions that even he now concedes drove Iran to the negotiating table.

The Republican Congress has been trying to reclaim a modest role in foreign affairs over Obama's furious resistance. And on Tuesday afternoon the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously passed a measure that authorizes Congress to vote on an Iran deal within 30 days of Obama submitting it for review.

As late as Tuesday morning, Secretary of State John Kerry was still railing in private against the bill. But the White House finally conceded when passage with a veto-proof majority seemed inevitable. The bill will now pass easily on the floor, and if Obama's follows his form, he will soon talk about the bill as if it was his idea.

Obama can still do whatever he wants on Iran as long as he maintains Democratic support. A majority could offer a resolution of disapproval, but that could be filibustered by Democrats and vetoed by the President. As few as 41 Senate Democrats could thus vote to prevent it from ever getting to President Obama's desk — and 34 could sustain a veto. Obama could then declare that Congress had its say and "approved" the Iran deal even if a majority in the House and Senate voted to oppose it.

Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker deserves credit for trying, but in the end he had to agree to Democratic changes watering down the measure if he wanted 67 votes to override an Obama veto.

Twice the Tennessee Republican delayed a vote in deference to Democrats, though his bill merely requires a vote after the negotiations are over.

His latest concessions shorten the review period to 30 days, which Obama wanted, perhaps to mollify the mullahs in Tehran who want sanctions lifted immediately. After 52 days Obama could unilaterally ease sanctions without Congressional approval. Obama has said that under the "framework" accord sanctions relief is intended to be gradual. But don't be surprised if his final concession to Ayatollah Khamenei is to lift sanctions after 52 days.

Corker also removed a requirement that the Administration certify to Congress that Iran is no longer supporting terrorism. This sends an especially bad signal to Iran that Congress agrees with Obama that the nuclear deal is divorced from its behavior as a rogue state. One of Obama's least plausible justifications for the nuclear deal is that it would help to make Iran a "normal" nation. But if Tehran is still sponsoring terrorism around the world, how can it be trusted as a nuclear partner?

Our own view of all this is closer to that of Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, who spoke for (but didn't offer) an amendment in committee Tuesday to require that Obama submit the Iran nuclear deal as a treaty. Under the Constitution, ratification would require an affirmative vote by two-thirds of the Senate.

Committing the U.S. to a deal of this magnitude_concerning proliferation of the world's most destructive weapons_should require treaty ratification. Previous Presidents from JFK to Nixon to Reagan and George H.W. Bush submitted nuclear pacts as treaties. Even Obama submitted the U.S.-Russian New Start accord as a treaty.

The Founders required two-thirds approval on treaties because they wanted major national commitments overseas to have a national political consensus. Obama should want the same kind of consensus on Iran.

But instead he is giving more authority over American commitments to the United Nations than to the U.S. Congress. By making the accord an executive agreement as opposed to a treaty, and perhaps relying on a filibuster or veto to overcome Congressional opposition, he's turning the deal into a one-man presidential compact with Iran. This will make it vulnerable to being rejected by the next President, as some of the GOP candidates are already promising.

The case for the Corker bill is that at least it guarantees some debate and a vote in Congress on an Iran deal. Obama can probably do what he wants anyway, but the Iranians are on notice that the United States isn't run by a single Supreme Leader.

Upcoming Events