WarSclerotic

The debate over the deal U.S. President Barack Obama has cut with Iran’s rulers is supposed to end this ‎week. The New York Times, The Associated Press and others in the media are reporting that the White House ‎has achieved a “victory.” On what basis? ‎

Polls show most Americans — 55% in the most recent Quinnipiac poll — oppose the agreement. ‎Only 25% support it. A bipartisan majority in Congress — 60% — disapproves the deal as ‎well.‎

Not for the first time, Obama is playing by his own rules. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of ‎Action is a nuclear arms control agreement with the world’s leading sponsor of ‎terrorism. Common sense and perhaps the U.S. constitution dictate that it should have been presented ‎as a treaty. But as a treaty, it would need to garner a two-thirds vote in the Senate, reflecting a ‎solid national consensus. ‎

Obama knew he could not achieve that level of support. In the end, he will not even get a ‎simple majority. So he marginalized Congress, creatively framing the deal as a “nonbinding ‎political agreement.” That way, he can veto a congressional vote of no confidence. A ‎supermajority would be required to overcome his veto. Perhaps that’s a victory for the ‎president, but it’s surely a loss for such principles as separation of powers, checks and balances ‎and majority rule. ‎

Obama is hoping for one more “victory.” If he can get Senate Democrats to filibuster, no ‎votes will be cast in the Senate and he won’t need to bother exercising his veto. ‎

Think about that: Every Democratic senator voted for the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. ‎Its sole purpose: to ensure that members of Congress would at least have an opportunity to ‎express their opinions. Those supporting a filibuster will be declaring that, upon reflection, they ‎prefer to muzzle themselves and play no role whatsoever on an issue vital to the security of ‎America and its allies. Perhaps they have more important things to do.‎

It was always a myth, albeit one widely circulated on both the Left and the Right, that ‎congressional disapproval, even if it were veto-proof, would “kill” the deal. As my colleague ‎Mark Dubowitz has said for months, Obama could have plowed ahead regardless using ‎executive powers that Congress would be unlikely to successfully challenge.‎

He would have reiterated that the JCPOA was endorsed by the U.N. Security Council. He ‎would have ignored the fact that the U.N. Security Council includes Russia and China, adversaries of the U.S., ‎and Venezuela, a self-declared enemy of the U.S. serving a term as a nonpermanent member. He ‎would have contended that Congress cannot overrule the “international community.” He would ‎have been wrong — the U.N. is not a global government — but here again I’m not confident that ‎Congress would have found a way to meaningfully contradict him.‎

Last week, Sen. Ben Cardin, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, ‎declared his disapproval of the deal. On Tuesday, Sen. Joe Manchin did as well. That makes four ‎Democrats in the Senate and, so far, 15 Democrats in the House opposing the agreement. Among ‎the reasons Cardin gave: “It would provide Iran with international endorsement of an ‎industrial-scale nuclear program. Worse, Iran would be economically strengthened by ‎frighteningly quick relief from sanctions and international economic engagement.” ‎

He added: “The agreement talks about normalization of economic relations with Iran and states ‎that the parties shall ‘implement this JCPOA in good faith … based on mutual respect.’ But ‎there cannot be respect for a country that actively foments regional instability, advocates for ‎Israel’s destruction, kills the innocent and shouts, ‘Death to America.'”‎

Cardin was speaking truth to power. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, ‎who has belonged to both parties, wrote last month that “if you are a Democrat who opposes the ‎agreement, you are also risking your political career. That’s the message the White House and ‎some liberal leaders are sending.”‎

It’s telling that many Democrats who approve the deal are doing so with less-than-ringing ‎endorsements. Sen. Cory Booker last week called the agreement “dangerous” and “deeply ‎flawed.” The U.S., he recalled, began the talks with the “stated intention of preventing Iran from ‎having the capability to get a nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, it’s clear we didn’t achieve that ‎objective and have only delayed  —  not blocked  — Iran’s potential nuclear breakout.” ‎

There are several ways this deal could still be undone. Even as Obama was sidelining the ‎U.S. Congress, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was announcing that the Majlis, Iran’s faux ‎parliament, “should not be sidelined on the nuclear deal issue.” He said he would not tell those ‎officials whether to register their “approval or disapproval” of the agreement. So their votes will ‎count but not those of U.S. senators? And would you be surprised if they demanded a few more ‎concessions from the Great Satan? ‎

Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Pompeo and several other members of Congress are arguing that ‎Obama has failed to comply with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. That law requires the ‎president to give Congress access to the entire agreement, specifically including “side ‎agreements.” The side agreement between Iran and U.N. inspectors — which contains significant ‎inspection and verification provisions vital to the success of Obama’s deal — remains secret.‎

This Friday happens to be the anniversary of an attack that should have awakened us all to the ‎threat posed by those whose goal is to destroy America. In a saner world, that would concentrate ‎political minds on the wisdom of a deal that will enrich, empower, embolden and re-legitimize ‎the self-proclaimed anti-Western revolutionaries who rule Iran.‎

Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a ‎columnist for The Washington Times.