The Legal Options for Blocking the Iran Nuclear Deal
Support is building for the US House of Representatives to muster the courage to block implementation of the flawed “deal” with Iran, and the only way to do so is to enjoin the administration from dropping sanctions.
This was the message delivered in a just-published op-ed by Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey and former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge.
A bipartisan group of 105 congressmen wrote to US President Barack Obama asking that he freeze the Iran nuke deal, since “the Iranians have already violated critical provisions on multiple occasions just months into the agreement.”
Ferment among legislators has delayed emergence of a consensus view that would yield a concrete proposal as to how to follow through on this request.
There is no alternative. To save Western civilization, the House must enjoin Obama from implementing the Iranian nuke pact.
The rationale for litigation has been fleshed out in essays, the most recent of which elucidated why the optimal approach is for the House to build upon Rep. Peter Roskam’s resolution (passed four months ago) that determined lack of compliance with the Corker-Cardin Act.
After former speaker John Boehner recognized this vote had laid the foundation for litigation, Rep. Louie Gohmert introduced a follow-up resolution that provided a legislative vehicle for empowering the House to sue (having declared that Obama’s default rendered the Corker-Cardin review process moot and that this pact should be treated as a treaty).
Subsequently, Rep. Mike Pompeo discovered on November 19 that the pact was felt to be a “political commitment,” an obscure designation that hasn’t been tested in the judiciary.
It seems the major hurdle to filing a lawsuit is tethered to politics, rather than to rapidly evolving realities — circumstances that resemble the cascade of alliances that triggered the Great War in 1914.
The many Iranian violations of international accords have been cataloged, but even the most seasoned observers have failed to enunciate how to express dismay, disgruntlement, disgust (choose one) with what emerged on Bastille Day 2015.
Some who would be motivated to advocate such action have remained mute, perhaps because of the desire to “keep their powder dry” lest a judicial loss undermine any future endeavor.
Others have wanted to delay acting until the ability to mount a bipartisan effort emerges, removing such an initiative from presidential jockeying.
Meanwhile, the administration’s lame response to the exploding conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran has dramatized the degree to which Obama avoids any semblance of conflict with Tehran.
His desire to maintain the façade of this deal/capitulation and his intent to broker a Syrian settlement are so all-encompassing that he refuses to recognize how Riyadh is reacting to having been abandoned by a stalwart ally, dating back to agreements effected by president Roosevelt.
The Saudis are not innocent — noting support for madrassas that espouse Wahhabism — but they don’t routinely exclaim “Death to America!” Some would say that Obama fantasizes that outsourcing Middle East policy to the Russians allows him to escape his responsibility to uphold traditional alliances. Others would argue that the priority of defeating Islamic State — belatedly recognized as a “varsity level” force — dwarfs all other considerations.
His foreign policy has become an unmitigated disaster. His former defenders have abandoned him during colloquies now broadcast regularly on left-wing MSNBC’s Morning Joe. He must be blocked from creating more disasters during 2016 that could take decades to reverse.
Exemplifying this challenge is how he touted the Iraqi withdrawal four years ago as a success, contrasted with how he touts victories in Iraq (belatedly retaking Ramadi) and Syria (“bringing peace”).
Ignored is the fact that these countries — plus the rest of the Middle East, the Maghreb, east and west Africa, throughout Asia — are in turmoil, and that these Islamist forces are seeping into Israel from Judea and Samaria.
Those who claim Iran already has the bomb — and, thus, feel the pact is irrelevant — conveniently overlook the fact that Obama wants to enrich the No. 1 global funder of terrorism by $150 billion.
Further monitoring has been advised by some liberal apologists – notably at such entities as the American Jewish Committee – even as the failure of adopting such an ostrich-like posture is glaring.
Even awaiting a violation by Iran – based on, for example, a petulant response to US enhancement of visa requirements – is unlikely to prompt Obama to recognize Iranian actions as rendering the pact null-and-void.
Therefore, a model filing was formulated in November, based on causes- of-action:
* The pact has not been signed by anyone — including Iran — so it is unenforceable.
* It is a treaty rather than an executive agreement or political commitment.
* It undermines American support for Israel’s right to exist and survival, ignoring the unambiguous “sense” of Congress, as articulated in Corker-Cardin.
* It was improperly implemented through passage of the Corker-Cardin Bill, due to fundamental misrepresentations and withheld data.
* It violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* Neither the pact nor Corker-Cardin contains a “severability” clause and, thus, if any component of either document is flawed, the entire pact cannot be portrayed as having been approved.
Concern that such a filing could yield a protracted battle that would ultimately have to reach the Supreme Court is misguided, for an injunction would stop Obama from releasing the funds in the interim, and the above bullet-points underscore the narrative that this out-of-control president must be restrained.
Because this deal is interwoven with Obama’s Islamophilic foreign policy, undermining his unholy alliance with Iran and Russia could finally unravel what has proven to be a series of failed “friendship” gambits with sworn enemies and disheartening distancing efforts with loyal friends.
Congress can place Obama’s failed “following from behind” doctrine into receivership before any more damage occurs throughout 2016.
Just as the House was granted standing to sue Obama for faulty implementation of ObamaCare, it must now stop him from granting Iran both the funding for international terrorism and a pathway to nuclear weapons.
The writer, a political activist and Republican committee-person, has litigated against implementation of the Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco industry, against the creation of health-insurer Highmark, and against unconstitutional levels of public funding for two sports stadiums in Philadelphia.
This article was originally published by The Jerusalem Post.