Corker calls on Congress to reject Iran deal

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Monday that Congress should reject the Iran nuclear agreement, suggesting the deal won’t prevent Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon.

“It is Congress’s responsibility to determine whether this agreement will be in our national interest, will make the United States safer and will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons program. I do not believe that it will,” Corker, the influential chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed.

“Rather than end Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, over time this deal industrializes the program of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. … Congress should reject this deal and send it back to the president.”

{mosads}He added that Congress rejecting the nuclear agreement is the “best way” to push back against an Iranian government he suggested had bolstered its support for terror groups and Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government since negotiations started in 2013.

“Many say now is the time for the United States to push back against Iran,” he added. “The best way to do that is for Congress to reject an agreement that strengthens Iran with hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, removes the conventional weapons and ballistic missile technology embargoes on Iran and allows for a U.S.-approved, industrial-scale enrichment program for which Iran has zero practical need.”

Corker’s opposition to the deal, while not surprising, is significant. The Tennessee Republican quickly defended the administration against his more hawkish colleagues when the talks missed deadline after deadline earlier this year, arguing that he would rather negotiators take their time and try to get a good deal.

In his op-ed, he stressed that he came to the negotiations “with an open mind. Prioritizing engagement over coercion in an attempt to end three decades of animosity with Iran appeals to the American idealism in us all.”

But he’s been increasingly critical of the agreement since it was announced in mid-July. While he stopped short earlier this month of saying that he was opposed to the deal, he classified himself as “skeptical.”

His opposition comes after Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of the few Republicans considered undecided on the deal, said on Saturday that he would vote against the agreement.

Corker, like Flake, suggested the deal ties Congress’s and future administration’s hands on what it can do to push back against Iranian non-nuclear activities, including support for terrorism and human rights violations.

“If we try to push back, Iran will threaten to speed up its nuclear development since it already will have a windfall of money, a rapidly growing economy and alliances built with our partners, who will feast on the mercantile benefits of doing business with Iran,” he added.

His op-ed comes after he told reporters earlier this month that Congress would extend an Iranian sanctions law, which expires at the end of 2016.

“My guess is, by the way, that one of the first things Congress will do when we finish this debate, I would say give it 60 days, we will pass that extension,” he told reporters.

Some lawmakers have voiced concerns that if they renew the law for 10 years Tehran would view it as violating the nuclear agreement between the United States, Iran and five other countries.

Corker’s opposition to the Iran deal comes after more than a handful of Senate Democrats have come out in support for the agreement since the Senate left for a five-week recess.

President Obama will need 34 senators to back the agreement and block a veto override for his deal to survive the upper chamber.