Negotiators from the United States, Iran, and other leading international powers have reached an initial agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program. In exchange for a suspension of international sanctions, Tehran will dramatically scale back its enrichment activities.
All is not done, however. Today’s deal is only an outline, with the details — and their devils — left for later. And far from the negotiating tables, Congress is threatening to claim the final say over any deal.
What is in the agreement?
The general contours of the deal are fairly straightforward. Iran wants an end to the sanctions that have crippled its economy. On the other side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Germany, and Russia are trying to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Negotiators built their agreement around this basic tradeoff. As Tehran dramatically scales back its nuclear program, the United Nations will lift its sanctions.
Advertisement
At this time, many of the specifics remain unclear — partly because they haven’t been announced and partly because they haven’t been fully negotiated. Early reports suggest that Iran will continue to enrich uranium in limited quantities, that key Iranian facilities will be reorganized so as to limit their bomb-making abilities, and that international sanctions will be lifted gradually, as Iran begins to comply with details of the accord.
What happens next?
We move to the next phase of negotiation, where this interim agreement takes its final form, including specific expectations and detailed rules of enforcement.
The deadline for a final agreement is late June, but even that won’t be the end of the story.
If the agreement is going to matter, it has to actually get implemented. And for that, the negotiators need the support of politicians. In Iran, that means signoff from the supreme leader. In the United States, it may require at least some support from Congress.
Advertisement
Can Congress block this deal?
Congress could pass a law to keep Iran’s sanctions in place, regardless of how the negotiations ultimately turn out. In practice, however, that would demand a rare level of vigorous, bipartisan action because it would have to overcome a likely presidential veto.
Republican Senator Bob Corker is among the leading figures pushing for a less direct approach, one that requires the president to submit any final agreement to Congress for approval. That bill has attracted a fair amount of bipartisan support — possibly enough to override a veto — and it could complicate the president’s ability to implement a deal.
Doesn’t the president need congressional approval anyway?
No. President Obama has a lot of latitude to implement the agreement on his own because this isn’t likely to be an official treaty. It’s merely a political commitment, which the president is free to sign without Senate approval.
And the president doesn’t need Congress to help lift sanctions either, since the law authorizing those sanctions gives the president the ability to waive them as needed.
Could a future president renege?
Possibly, but it might be quite difficult. As part of any agreement, the UN Security Council is expected to pass a resolution suspending international sanctions. If that resolution also instructs member states to lift their sanctions, it might be binding on the United States.
More generally, though, the bigger issue may simply be facts on the ground. Assuming Iran has halted its nuclear activity, abrogating the agreement would be hard to justify. And if Iran isn’t complying, then new sanctions would probably be required under the agreement itself.
Advertisement
Could these negotiations still fail?
Absolutely. It’s possible negotiators won’t be able to fill in the necessary details to make this interim agreement work. And it’s also possible Congress will act to preempt any deal.
Should the talks fail, we’d go back to the old dynamic, where Iran continues its nuclear enrichment, while the UN and the United States pursue further sanctions.
Beyond that there aren’t a lot of options. But one possibility is growing support for a targeted attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities — following the precedent set by Israel’s successful raid against a nuclear facility in Iraq three decades ago.
Iran’s nuclear program has been laid out in a way that makes it more difficult to destroy, however. And there’s a risk that such an assault could trigger a retaliation, with its own cascade of unpredictable effects.
More from Evan Horowitz:
Evan Horowitz digs through data to find information that illuminates the policy issues facing Massachusetts and the United States. He can be reached at evan.horowitz@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @GlobeHorowitz