Republican Party for securing Pakistan nuclear arsenal; calls India its ally
PTI | 1 mins ago
CLEVELAND (US): Describing India as a “geopolitical ally” of the US, the Republican platform has urged New Delhi to protect all its religious communities from violence and discrimination and also called for securing nuclear arsenal of Pakistan.
“India is our geopolitical ally and a strategic trading partner. The dynamism of its people and the endurance of their democratic institutions are earning their country a position of leadership not only in Asia but throughout the world,” the Republican platform released by the party after its formal approval stated.
“For all of India’s religious communities, we urge protection against violence and discrimination,” it said while noting the contributions made by the citizens of Indian ancestry to the US.
The Republican platform or the party election manifesto said conflicts in the Middle East have created special political and military challenges for the people of Pakistan.
“Our working relationship is necessary, though sometimes difficult, beneficial to both, and we look towards the strengthening of historic ties that have frayed under the weight of international conflict,” it said.
“This process cannot progress as long as any citizen of Pakistan can be punished for helping the war on terror. Pakistanis, Afghans, and Americans have a common interest in ridding the region of the Taliban and securing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal,” said the document.
Calling for mutual trust for progress of the region, it said,” A Republican president will work with all regional leaders to restore mutual trust while insisting upon progress against corruption and the narcotic trade that fuels insurgency”.
The 2012 Republican platform had welcomed a stronger relationship with the world’s largest democracy both economically and culturally, as well as in matters of national security.
“We hereby affirm and declare that India is our geopolitical ally and a strategic trading partner. We encourage India to permit greater foreign investment and trade. We urge protection for adherents of all India’s religions,” it said.
In 2012, the Republican platform had also said that it expects the Pakistan government to sever any connection between its security and intelligence forces and the insurgents.
Koch, the CEO of Koch industries, made the comment to ABC News’ Jonathan Karl for an interview airing on ABC’s This Week.
Koch and his brother, David, and their associated groups plan to spend nearly $900 million on the 2016 elections.
The comment came after Karl asked about former President Bill Clinton’s term, to which Koch said Clinton was “in some ways” better than George W. Bush.
“We would have to believe her actions would have to be quite different than her rhetoric, let me put it that way,” he said.
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Senate Blocks GOP Measure Against Iran Nuclear Deal
Move ends opponents’ chances of unraveling international agreement
By KRISTINA PETERSON
Updated Sept. 10, 2015 7:40 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama won the biggest foreign-policy fight of his second term Thursday when supporters of his nuclear accord with Iran thwarted an effort to cripple it, paving the way for the deal’s implementation.
The victory was sealed in a procedural vote, as the Senate voted 58-42, short of the 60 votes needed, on a measure aimed at derailing the international agreement. The vote effectively ends a bitter, partisan fight in Congress over the accord, and spares Mr. Obama from the need for a veto to safeguard the deal.
“Today, the Senate took an historic step forward and voted to enable the United States to work with our international partners to enable the implementation of the comprehensive, long-term deal that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Obama said in a statement after the vote. “This vote is a victory for diplomacy, for American national security, and for the safety and security of the world.”
The House has yet to conclude its own series of votes on the nuclear deal, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) indicated the Senate would repeat its vote next week. But with Democrats unlikely to change their positions, the deal’s opponents now have no shot at passing legislation capable of unraveling the international accord.
The agreement reached on July 14 in Vienna imposes strict curbs on Iran’s nuclear program, which will start to be eased after 10 years. In exchange, the U.S., the European Union and the United Nations will lift tight international sanctions on Tehran, contingent on Iran’s compliance with the deal.
All Republicans and a handful of Democrats in Congress are opposed to the deal, worried that its terms, particularly after 10 years, would leave a more economically secure Iran capable of producing a nuclear weapon quickly.
“This deal grants Iran permanent sanctions relief in exchange for only temporary limitations on its nuclear program,” Sen. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.), a former Foreign Relations Committee chairman, said on the Senate floor Thursday.
In the weeks leading up to Thursday’s vote, Democrats faced competing pressures from liberal groups urging them to back Mr. Obama’s diplomacy and critics in a divided Jewish community, who feared Iran would deploy its new resources to fund acts of terrorism against Israel. The pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee had leaned on Democrats to oppose the deal and urged them to refrain from blocking it on a procedural motion.
After the vote, Mr. McConnell made clear that he wouldn’t let Democrats bring up legislation that he said would make them look tough on Iran unless they had enough support for it to become law.
“We’re not interested in using floor time for get-well efforts over on the other side to try to fool their constituents into thinking, ‘I really was serious about Iran, in spite of the fact that I voted for the deal that you hate,’ ” Mr. McConnell said on the Senate floor Thursday.
Public opinion of the nuclear accord has slipped over the summer, according to the Pew Research Center. In early September, just 21% of adults polled by Pew approved of the agreement, down from 33% in mid-July. Nearly half now disapprove of it, up slightly from 45% in July.
Some Democrats who said they reluctantly endorsed an imperfect deal have already called for renewing the 20-year-old Iran Sanctions Act, which expires at the end of 2016. The law prohibits investments of more than $20 million by U.S. or foreign firms in much of Iran’s energy industry. Lawmakers from both parties have said such sanctions must be reauthorized to ensure that Iran can be punished if it cheats on the nuclear deal or commits other terrorism or human-rights violations.
The White House hasn’t said whether it would support or block the renewal of the sanctions act, but wants to make sure Congress doesn’t make sanctions moves that would prompt Iran to say the U.S. reneged on the deal.
Although Mr. Obama has known for more than a week that he had the support to win a veto fight, suspense remained for days over whether the Senate, narrowly controlled by the GOP, would be able to pass a resolution disapproving the deal, setting up a veto. Republicans hold 54 of the chamber’s 100 seats, but most measures need 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles, enabling Democrats to retain leverage.
Some Democrats had been wary of taking a vote that could be perceived as thwarting an up-or-down vote on a monumental foreign-policy agreement. But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) told Democrats that the procedural vote would become the final referendum on the nuclear deal. He later stood behind the table where Democrats cast their votes, watching as all 42 members of the Democratic caucus who backed the deal stuck together.
All Senate Republicans and four Senate Democrats voted to advance the disapproval resolution. The four Senate Democrats who oppose the nuclear accord are Mr. Menendez and Sens. Charles Schumer of New York, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
The House, meanwhile, passed a measure on party lines Thursday accusing Mr. Obama of failing to comply with legislation enacted in May giving lawmakers 60 days to review and vote on the Iran deal. Republicans have said the clock hasn’t started because the administration didn’t submit two confidential side deals reached between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. agency that will be policing the nuclear deal.
IAEA officials have said they don’t release the confidential agreements the agency strikes with any country, including the U.S. White House officials said they have fully complied with the review law, including briefing any member of Congress who asked to learn more about the IAEA accords.
House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) told reporters Thursday that it was “very possible” that House Republicans would sue Mr. Obama over what they see as his failure to comply with the May review law.
“This is a bad deal with decadeslong consequences for the security of the American people and our allies,” Mr. Boehner said. “We’ll use every tool at our disposal to stop, slow and delay this agreement from being fully implemented.”
Separately, a resolution approving the deal is expected to fail in the GOP-controlled House Friday.
—Carol E. Lee contributed to this article.
Republicans Submit House Bill To Disapprove Of Iran Nuclear Deal
4 hours ago
That draft legislation was submitted on August 4 after Representative Peter Roskam (Republican-Illinois) claimed the Republicans had enough votes to pass a bill disapproving of the deal in the lower chamber of the U.S. Congress.
But that support fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to overcome a likely veto by President Barack Obama.
Roskam said 218 of the House’s 434 current members had committed to voting against the treaty — all of them Republicans.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has said she expects enough Democrats will vote in fa
vor of the nuclear deal to sustain a presidential veto.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate’s Republican majority leader, Mitch McConnell, said on August 4 that the Senate would “in all likelihood” also consider a resolution of disapproval on the Iran nuclear agreement.
McConnell’s remarks came after three key senators from the Democratic Party announced their support for the nuclear accord with Iran that was agreed in Vienna on July 14 by the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China plus Germany.
Senators Tim Kaine of Virginia, who co-authored the legislation giving Congress the right to review the deal, Barbara Boxer of California, a senior Jewish member of the Senate, and Bill Nelson of Florida all said they would back the deal.
Their support for the treaty means that even if the narrow Republican majority in the Senate passes their disapproval of the accord, they also would not be likely to muster the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto.
In a Senate speech on August 4 announcing his decision, Nelson said, “If the U.S. walks away from this multinational agreement, I believe we would find ourselves alone in the world with little credibility.”
Nelson also said there was “no other available alternative” to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability for the next 10 to 15 years.
Boxer said a rejection of the deal would be “a victory for Iranian hard-liners and would accelerate their ability to obtain a nuclear weapon.”
Kaine said the deal disabled Iran’s nuclear program for “many years through peaceful diplomatic means with sufficient tools for the international community to verify whether Iran is meeting its commitments.”
Obama was due later on August 4 to hold a private meeting with Jewish leaders in a bid to rally their support for the nuclear deal.
Under the accord, Iran has agreed to significantly limit its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.
With reporting by AP, Reuters, AFP, TheHill.com, and Haaretz
Will Republicans Fall for the Iran Trap?
If the GOP manages to kill the Iran deal, thus isolating the country and putting it on a path to war, then the party’s political viability could be placed on ice for a considerable period.
Robert W. Merry
July 27, 2015
The Republican Party is walking into a trap, and there doesn’t seem to be anything on the horizon that can save it from the disaster. In Congress, they will vote to a person, or nearly so, in opposing President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Meanwhile, it appears that every one of the current sixteen GOP presidential candidates will campaign against the agreement. What’s more, at least three GOP candidates—Florida’s Marco Rubio, Wisconsin’s Scott Walker and Texas’s Ted Cruz—say they will rescind the deal if they become president. No doubt others will soon echo that threat.
All this will be thoroughly debated—first, during the congressional drama that now will unfold regarding GOP efforts to deny presidential authority to lift U.S. sanctions against Iran; and, then, during the forthcoming presidential election. And through those debates the GOP position will collapse of its own weight. The underlying logic is so flimsy and riddled with inconsistencies that ultimately the American people will reject it.
Begin with the GOP response to Obama’s argument that the choice facing the United States now is the current agreement, which is imperfect but sound, and a likely war as the only remaining option for halting or delaying Iran’s nuclear-arms program. Opponents argue that that is a false dichotomy in that another option would be further sanctions to force upon Iran a better agreement. There are two problems with that response.
First, there is no evidence that a better deal would be in the offing should the United States crank up the economic pressure through tougher sanctions. The current agreement, after all, is the product of long and arduous negotiations aimed at reaching a point that all sides could live with, not that one side could tout as a definitive victory. That’s not how negotiations work, and certainly not when national interest and national pride are involved. Granted, the outcome wasn’t ideal from the American standpoint, but no ideal outcome is ever in the cards in such circumstances.
Second, even if a better deal were possible at some point in the past, that train has left the station. Having gone through those wrenching bargaining sessions, Iran simply isn’t going to go back to square one because Ted Cruz, Rand Paul et al don’t like it. Iran’s only viable option would be to push headlong toward nuclear weapons as a future bargaining chip for sanctions removal and, more significantly, to fortify it against the nearly certain war that has been promoted so assiduously by the current Israeli government and by so many likeminded U.S. politicians. And there wouldn’t be anything short of war to stop the Iranians from pursuing that course.
Besides, it isn’t just America and Iran on this parchment. Other signatories are China, Russia, Britain, France, and Germany, and there is no reason to believe any of these countries will back away from the agreement. So how is the United States going to separate itself from this so-called P5+1 contingent and unilaterally pressure Iran to renegotiate the deal, particularly as these other nations are working within the United Nations to lift UN sanctions against Iran. The result will be a degree of U.S. isolation never experienced since before World War II.
And so we come back to the Obama dichotomy: the current policy or a likely war. This stark choice has not crystallized within the national consciousness thus far. But it will. The American people are not stupid, at least not collectively. They will be able to assess the arguments on both sides, and the Obama argument will not only make more sense but also will convey with more credibility where the real dangers lie in this geopolitical equation.
In any risk assessment, there are two fundamental elements. The first is the magnitude of the downside risk; the second is the likelihood of it. The magnitude of the disaster that would flow from a U.S. war with Iran (far greater than the disaster that ensued from our war with Iraq) is not difficult to contemplate—huge troop requirements, burdensome financial commitments, tragic casualty numbers, likely civic unrest at home, further destabilization of the Middle East with utterly unknown (but serious) consequences, further U.S. isolation in the world, possibly a spreading conflagration to other parts of the world as other powers challenge a distracted America. The likelihood of the worst-case scenario here may not be ominously high, but even best-case consequences could be tragic, and the law of unintended consequences is never far away when the shooting starts.
Which brings us to the second argument of the neocon wing of the GOP, which increasingly seems to be the entire GOP. It is that Iran is a nation of crazies, bent on conquering the world and destroying Israel without any serious regard to its own fate. Mitt Romney wrote just recently, “Iran is led by suicidal, apocalypse-seeking, America-hating, Israel-denying theocratic fanatics.” These fanatics, he added (in case anybody may have missed the point), are “entirely bereft of restraint, decency and respect for human life.” So naturally it follows, “If the ayatollahs have nuclear weapons, they will use them, someday, somewhere.”
This is breathtaking in its own fanaticism—and in the ignorance that, one might have hoped, would have been tucked away after Romney’s 2012 presidential defeat at the hands of a lackluster incumbent. A survey of recent Iranian history suggests that its leaders, while starkly fundamentalist in their religious sensibility, conduct foreign policy based on a logical understanding of their national interests and an often brilliant pursuit of them within the context of geopolitical reality.
They certainly never sent an army halfway around the world to overthrow the leader of a sovereign state with the intent of establishing a beachhead for the transformation of an entire regional culture. Now that’s “bereft of restraint.” The only conventional war the Ayatollahs have engaged in ensued when Iran was invaded by Iraq—with American support. True, they align themselves with some nations we don’t like, but those alliances, as unsavory as they may be to us, are in Iran’s interest as a regional power in a nasty neighborhood. One can argue that this renders Iran a U.S. adversary, but there is no evidence that these people are fanatical nihilists who want to destroy the world.
As to the prospect that Iran inevitably would use nuclear weapons if it had them, it is worth noting that the world has nine nuclear nations, and only one has ever used them—and that when no other nation had them for retaliation. Romney is saying here that Iran is more fanatical and suicidal than any other nuclear nation in the history of the nuclear age, even North Korea. That isn’t going to hold up when the American people get down to assessing the arguments of this debate.
Finally, we are told that Iran will cheat on the agreement, that inspections won’t be rigor
ous enough, that Iran always cheats and is hell-bent on getting nuclear weapons so it will cheat here for sure and thwart all efforts by the agreement signatories and the UN, including UN inspectors, to monitor its nuclear activity until the world is faced with a fait accompli. Perhaps. But how realistic is such a scenario? With satellite technology and the CIA and Israeli intelligence and random revelations, could Iran really spring such a fait accompli on the world before the world caught wind of it? Once again we come to the likelihood factor in risk analysis. The likelihood factor here is very slim.
History tells us that the American people like it when their presidents score big foreign-policy triumphs—and count it as a plus when the incumbent or incumbent party seeks White House retention at the next election. This is Obama’s big foreign-policy triumph. And, while the American people haven’t yet embraced it as such, they will. As the debate progresses, it will become increasingly clear that the consequences of killing this deal or reneging on it are ominous, that America and the world retain plenty of options if Iran proves treacherous, and that the stakes include not only America’s relationship with Iran but also America’s standing in the world. Not to mention the prospects for war if the deal goes down.
If it survives over nearly unanimous GOP objections, as appears likely, it will be a net negative for Republicans, perhaps even a big one. But, if the party manages to kill the deal for America, thus isolating the country and putting it upon a path to war, then the party’s political viability could be placed on ice for a considerable period.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington political correspondent and publishing executive, is the author most recently of Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians.
Israel to be blamed if Iran nuclear deal fails: Kerry
NEW YORK (Web Desk) – US Secretary of State John Kerry warned Israel of finding itself more isolated in the international arena and “more blamed”, if Congress voted against the Iranian nuclear deal, signed last week in Vienna.
Kerry said this while delivering a speech at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York, reported The Times of Israel.
“I fear that what could happen is that, if Congress were to overturn it, our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated. And more blamed,” Kerry told the audience.
Read more: UN endorses Iran deal, paves way to lift sanctions
Former Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Oren rejected Kerry’s statement. “If American legislators reject the nuclear deal, they will do so exclusively on the basis of US interests,” said Oren in a statement.
Earlier, Kerry warned that any future Israeli military action against Iran over its nuclear program would be an “enormous mistake.”
Boehner to ‘do everything’ to block Iran deal
By Deirdre Walsh and Ted Barrett CNN
Published On: Jul 22 2015 11:35:27 AM PDT
Updated On: Jul 23 2015 11:42:41 AM PDT
WASHINGTON (CNN) –
Hours before top Obama administration officials began briefing Congress on the classified details of the nuclear accord with Iran, House Speaker John Boehner vowed Republicans would “do everything possible to stop” the agreement.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, put the onus on the Obama administration to convince members on Capitol Hill the agreement deserved their support.
“It’s always the administration, not Congress, that carries the burden of proof in a debate of this nature,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “And it seems the administration today has a long way to go with Democrats and Republicans alike.”
Republicans are seizing on what they are calling a “side deal” Iran negotiated with the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding inspections as a reason to oppose the overall agreement.
GOP Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas questioned Kerry about “side deals” he said Iran negotiated with the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding inspections.
Kerry admitted he didn’t have all the details on those agreements, but expected to be briefed on them.
“It’s an enormous problem to be asked to vote on an agreement you have not seen in its totality,” Pompeo told reporters after the briefing. He insisted the “secret side deals” were important because they deal with “important verification processes that are going to take place with respect to Parchin, where there were suspected explosive device testing take place for Iran that were nuclear related.”
Pompeo and Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas — another top GOP opponent of the deal — sent a letter to Obama, along with Boehner and McConnell, demanding details of the supposed side deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
This week the White House has all hands on deck trying to prevent opponents from scuttling the deal. After Wednesday’s closed-door sessions with members, the first public hearing on the Iran agreement is slated for Thursday.
Secretary of State John Kerry, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz are expected to face tough questioning from members of both parties on Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The campaign against the deal is also in full swing — roughly 40 House conservatives huddled for breakfast with Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer, who outlined a long list of objections to the nuclear agreement.
Dermer’s message, according to Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King, who hosted the meeting, was pretty straightforward: “Congress is the last stop to avoid this.”
King said much of discussion focused on what happens 10-12 years after the agreement is implemented. The Iowa Republican warned if opponents on Capitol Hill don’t shut it down now “then it paves the way not just for a nuclear Iran, but a very highly powered nuclear Iran that changes the dynamics in the region and changes the destiny of the world.”
Virginia Rep. Dave Brat, who also attended the meeting with Dermer, said the overall thrust of the conversation was “to pay less attention to all the details — the debate on centrifuges and years and committees and UN and all that — and pay more attention to who’s on the other side of the debate and that is Iran.”
The White House got good news Tuesday night when Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, announced he would support the bill.
He called the agreement “an historic opportunity to once and for all prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, something no administration or Congress has yet to accomplish.”
“Given a choice between the invasion or Iran or working in a diplomatic fashion toward a negotiation so that we can lessen this threat to the world, I think President Obama made the right choice,” Durbin, a close ally of the President, said in a Senate floor speech.
“There is a third choice,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 GOP senator. “There are tougher sanctions that will bring Iran to the table for a better deal and a good deal. It’s simply unacceptable for the President to be misrepresenting what the options are to Congress and the American people.”
Sen. Dan Coats, a respected Senate veteran who sits on the intelligence committee, echoed that view.
“We must ignore the coming public relations campaign that will trumpet this deal as a victory for diplomacy and the false premise that the deal is a choice between peace and war,” Coats said on the floor.
Of the deal itself, he said, “The more I read, the more my concern grows.”
Durbin is in charge of counting votes for the Democrats. In recent days he’s said is uncertain if there will be enough Democrats to either successfully block the a resolution of disapproval from coming to the floor or to sustain the President’s expected veto of it if it passes. He said his fellow Democratic senators must first read the agreement and hear the administration’s briefings before deciding.
Currently there are about 15 Senate Democrats who could vote against the deal. If they joined Republicans against it they could override a veto. Already those 15 are the subject of heavy lobbying by the forces for and against the agreement and will likely face intense pressure in the roughly 60 days before Congress must vote on the deal.
In the House where GOP opposition appears virtually unanimous, the President would need 145 Democrats to help him sustain a veto. The top House Democrat, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, endorsed the deal last week, which was a big win for the administration, and she expressed confidence members of her party would back the President.
Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois, didn’t like Kerry’s tone in the Wednesday meeting.
“I would appreciate if the secretary showed a little more respect for members of Congress,” he said.
He declined to say specifically what the secretary of state said that was so off putting.
Another Democrat, Rep Jim Himes of Connecticut, said he was still studying the Iran agreement, but said Kerry and other Cabinet officials gave “a very, very strong defense of the deal” and “they are making a lot of headway.”
Himes said administration officials urged members to view the deal in context of where Iran was recently — on the threshold of obtaining nuclear capabilities – and where they are now.
“From my standpoint the burden of proof, given what I’ve learned so far, is for the opponents to explain why this is a bad deal relative to where we were and why this a bad deal relative to where we will be if the United States unilaterally walks away from it.”
Congress promises rough ride for any nuclear deal with Iran
By Richard Cowan and Douwe Miedema
WASHINGTON | Sun Jul 12, 2015 1:28pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The top Republican in the U.S. Senate cast doubt on Sunday on whether President Barack Obama would be able to win approval in Congress for any nuclear deal with Iran, and some Democrats also expressed reservations.
“I think it’s going to be a very hard sell, if it’s completed, in Congress,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told “Fox News Sunday”. “We already know it’s going to leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state.”
The U.S. Congress could play a key role in the future of any deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program, with negotiations reaching a critical juncture in Vienna on Sunday.
Obama can enter a deal with Iran, which Congress would review. If the review went against him, Obama could veto the disapproval legislation. Congress could then try to reverse his veto, which is difficult. But if it succeeded, its disapproval would take away Obama’s ability to temporarily waive many U.S. sanctions on Iran.
Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a leading foreign policy voice among Senate Democrats, said the prospect of a deal made him “anxious,” saying the talks had moved from preventing Iran from having a nuclear capability, to managing it.
Western diplomats say the goal of the deal is to increase the time it would take for Iran to produce enough enriched uranium fuel for a weapon to at least one year, from current estimates of 2-3 months. In return for curbs on its nuclear activities, Iran would get relief from economic sanctions.
Menendez, interviewed on ABC’s “This Week” program, did not rule out supporting a deal.
Many congressional Republicans, including McConnell, have criticized the negotiations, saying the United States should be increasing economic sanctions against Iran. Tehran maintains its nuclear work is solely for peaceful purposes.
Referring to the congressional review process, McConnell said: “He (Obama) will have to get at least 34 votes” in the 100-member Senate to sustain his veto, adding that he hoped Democrats would resist a “strong pull” not to buck Obama.
The debate in Washington over any deal would happen with the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign already under way.
One Republican candidate, Senator Lindsay Graham, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” the negotiations should be left to the next president, who would take office in January 2017.
“I think a good outcome is to basically leave the interim deal in place” with Iran until then, Graham said.
House Speaker John Boehner said failure of the talks would not be a bad outcome.
On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Boehner said: “If, in fact, there’s no agreement, the sanctions are going to go back in place,” prodding Iran to “abandon their efforts to get a nuclear weapon, and stop being the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.”
(Editing by Ruth Pitchford and Robin Pomeroy)