Reposted from July 15: How will the nuclear deal be handled in Congress?

Because its relevant again:

- Click here for the previous entry - but its copied below so why bother?

According to the process established in S.615 - Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.

- Click here for it.

The companion bill in the House was H.R.1191 - Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.

- Click here for that one.

The Guardian describes the process here - or what we can expect from it. Much seems up in the air.

Some highlights:

Can Congress delay the deal?

Yes. Under the terms of an oversight process agreed between US lawmakers and the White House in April, the president has to present all the details to Congress within five days of striking a deal. This must include a report from the secretary of state on how Iranian compliance will be verified.

The Senate and House of Representatives then have 60 days to scrutinise the deal and hold hearings, during which time the president cannot begin lifting sanctions onIran. Obama may also then have to wait another 10-12 days before actually starting this crucial part of the process. In total, it could be up to eight weeks after the back-slapping in Vienna before anything can get going.

Can Congress block the deal?

In theory. Towards the end of the 60-day review period, both the House and Senate will probably vote on a resolution of approval or disapproval. The exact mechanism is unclear, but this is likely to require a simple majority in both chambers to pass – ie 51 of the 100 senators and 218 of the 435 representatives. Since many Republicans are opposed to the deal and currently command a majority in both House and Senate, it is quite possible that a joint disapproval resolution would pass.

The catch is that the president can veto any attempt to make such a resolution enforceable – and on Tuesday in his statement on the deal he vowed to do so. To override a presidential veto requires a second vote to be passed with a two-thirds majority in both chambers: a high hurdle that would have to include at least 42 Democrats in the House and a dozen Democratic senators – probably more, if some Republicans chose to back the administration.

In other words, Obama can stick to his deal as long as he persuades at least one-third of one chamber of Congress to vote with him over the course of the four votes. Conversely, his opponents have to persuade a significant number of Democrats to stand up against their president on the most important foreign policy question of his administration – four times in a row.

Catching up - Congressional process on the Iran Nuclear Deal

Some odds and ends for 2305 - we'll make sense of these in class.

- Democrats Block Iran Deal Disapproval.
- Why House Republicans Are Excited About New Iran Strategy.
- House Takes Symbolic Stand Against Iran Deal.
- House Republicans Say Obama Failed to Comply on Iran Deal.

So what is the Iranian nuclear deal all about anyway?

It's one of the items that Congress had on its agenda as it came back to DC this week. Republicans had the opportunity to derail it, but enough Democrats seem to have lined up behind the president to prevent that from happening. We will discuss that procedural issue in a separate post, but here are links where you get background about the deal itself.

First, what are the existing sanctions?
- Wikipedia: U.S. sanctions against Iran.
- CFR: International Sanctions on Iran.

And what is in the deal?
- Vox: Here's the full text of the Iran nuclear deal.
- Vox: The Iran deal, explained in clear language by a nuclear expert.
- Wikipedia: Iran nuclear deal framework.
- PolitiFact Sheet: 6 things to know about the Iran nuclear deal.

Twitter Effect Oversold?

George Friedman is not jumping on the Twitter bandwagon. He argues that the revolution in Iraq appears to have stalled partly due to its support not branching out beyond the "twittering classes." Western commentators may have misread the level of support that existed on the ground because the only voices they were hearing were those who used the technology:

The global media, obsessively focused on the initial demonstrators — who were supporters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s opponents — failed to notice that while large, the demonstrations primarily consisted of the same type of people demonstrating. Amid the breathless reporting on the demonstrations, reporters failed to notice that the uprising was not spreading to other classes and to other areas. In constantly interviewing English-speaking demonstrators, they failed to note just how many of the demonstrators spoke English and had smartphones. The media thus did not recognize these as the signs of a failing revolution.

The Guardian Council

The oligarchs who control Iran.

Twitter Comes of Age?

Andrew Sullivan has several posts (here, here, here, and here, for a few) lauding the role twitter has played in not only providing information about the post-election violence in Iran but organizing protests.

Every new technology needs its opportunity to demonstrate its relevance. This seems to be twitter's moment.

Not An Election

Christopher Hitchens argues that Iran is a totalitarian state.

Elections and Legitimacy

Elections, as we argue in 2301, are devices which among other things connect the general population with the law, thereby lending it legitimacy. But if an election seems to have been fraudulent, the opposite can occur. This is especially true if the fraud seems obvious, and a large percentage of the population agrees. The governing system then loses legitimacy, society crumbles and either government does something to reestablish legitimacy or removes the pretense and just clamps down on the population.

This may help explain the results of the recent election in Iran. Its president was reelected by a comfortable margin, a result which seems improbable based on popular opinion. Fraud is widely suspected. Protests have erupted, and some suspect a coup is in the works.

Andrew Sullivan claims that this story is only breaking because the blogosphere is pushing it, not the mainstream media. Even Twitter helped.

On Dialogue, Democracy, and Unalienable Rights

Two recent events call to mind continuing conflict over the role dialogue is supposed to play in policy formation, and whether we are committed to a full discussion of controversial topics, or prefer that people simply keep their mouths shut.

The first came to light during exchanges in hearings before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence. The topic was whether the temporary suspension of the need for intelligence agents to get warrants before they intercept messages from foreign suspects directed to Americans. The bulk of the dispute concerns whether the requirement imposed a time limit that would limit the effectiveness of the searches, but a more subtle, and perhaps significant exchange touched on the hearings themselves and the very fact that these issues are being debated at all (from an ABC news story):

"Some committee members questioned McConnell's credibility, especially comments he made to the El Paso Times last month that Americans would die because of open testimony in Congress. In that interview, McConnell was asked by the reporter, "So you're saying that the reporting and the debate in Congress mean that some Americans are going to die?"

McConnell responded by saying, "That's what I mean -- because we have made it so public. We used to do these things very differently, but for whatever reason it's a democratic process and sunshine's a good thing."

Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., told McConnell, "You're saying and standing by that, your previous statement, that when we debate these issues in the Congress of the United States, which is our system, that Americans -- some Americans -- are going to die. And I really think that's a stretch. And I think because of some of these things, it has done damage to what you bring forward. It puts a dent in the credibility."

This dilemma, unique to democratic governments, has been noted before. Alexis de Tocqueville suggested that democracies would be disadvantaged in military disputes because of this need for transparency. Secrecy allows for effective defense policymaking, but creates opportunities for abuse. On the one hand, McConnell may be making a valid point about what is necessary for him to do his job effectively, but he could also simply be defending his turf.

The second event is the Iranian President Ahmadinejad's visit to New York, and his public speaking engagements while there--notably his address to an audience at Columbia University.

Some argued that he should not have been allowed to speak at all given his controversial views on subjects ranging from the existence of Israel, to whether the Holocaust really happened, and the treatment of women and dissident groups in his country.

Others claim that the right to free speech requires all points of view to be debated in open forums, to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Oliver Wendel Holmes, in a Supreme Court decision, suggested that when we stifle a viewpoint we may be betraying a suspicion that we cannot successfully argue against it. If we think someone is wrong, we should give them the opportunity to speak their views and argue against it.

Personally I'm one the side of both transparency and open debate and believe that our nation is stronger as a result of both, but grows weaker when they are not allowed.

In 2301 we spend sometime speculating about the meaning of the term "among" in the Declaration of Independence's unalienable rights clause ("among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"). Other rights exist. Might one be the right to information?