The Republican demand for a Congressional vote on any nuclear deal with Iran could come back and bite them on election day.
In the intensely polarized political atmosphere engulfing Washington these days, it is unlikely Republicans would approve anything Barack Obama negotiated, even if it was a total unconditional Iranian surrender.
The Congress can hold hearings about on executive agreement with Iran, but unlike a treaty, it does not require Senate approval.
I have been involved with many institutions where someone clearly overstayed his or her welcome in a certain position. That person should have retired, transitioned, or resigned years (maybe even decades) earlier, but found ways to maneuver such that he or she could stick around, with the majority of folks involved in the organization becoming deeply resentful and the organization itself having its growth stunted.
An overwhelming majority in the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution rejecting containment of Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program, but a sponsor made clear that the bill did not authorize use of force.
The nonbinding resolution, which also says it is in the U.S. "vital interest" to keep Iran from achieving a nuclear capability, passed 401-11 on Thursday. A similar resolution is under consideration in the Senate.
The language it embraces is in line with "red lines" Israel has suggested could trigger a military attack.
On Tuesday, many of the 14,000 delegates to this year’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference — by far the largest attendance ever — fanned out across Capitol Hill, with more than 500 meetings planned with congressmen and the staffs of all 100 senators. Their message: the U.S. should close ranks with Israel and get tougher with Iran.