On a widely bipartisan basis, Congress has asserted a right to vote on any eventual agreement on Iran's potential nuclear weapons program. Considering the extraordinary stakes, the same spirit of bipartisanship should guide Congress as it deliberates the results of global diplomacy.
Among the key details of a developing compromise with the White House is that Congress would enter into a 30-day review period after a final agreement is struck, which is expected by June 30, during which President Obama could not grant relief from congressionally mandated sanctions. For its part, Congress agreed to soften language that could tie sanctions relief to Iran's ending support for terrorism.
Obama, of course, also wants to stop Iran from sponsoring terror. There is a bipartisan recognition of the dangers posed by the theocracy to the entire region, of course including Israel. This threatening bellicosity is precisely why it's critical to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. While many essential elements of the initial framework have yet to be finalized, an eventual agreement, however imperfect, is likely to offer the best hope to address the threat diplomatically.
Legislative bodies of the other so-called "P5+1" world powers that are party to the deal either won't get to vote or are generally supportive of their government's efforts. So Congress, which should play a significant role in foreign policy, should make this an opportunity to carefully consider its responsibilities and avoid the partisanship and insularity that has too often characterized the domestic debate. Sure, the 2016 presidential campaign has begun, but this is not a time for talking points. Instead it's imperative to recognize that relations with essential allies Britain, France and Germany need to be carefully weighed, along with the ramifications of spiking an agreement after a reluctant Russia and China agreed to impose strict sanctions.
Despite Obama's misgivings, Congress now has a say. It also has a responsibility to speak wisely.
