Senate Republicans are still waiting for details of the preliminary U.S.-Iran agreement. But they’re already making one thing clear: Congress should have a vote on any final deal.
President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf signed a memorandum of understanding on Monday, formally giving the two countries 60 days to negotiate an agreement.
While there’s a healthy dose of skepticism about the deal and whether it will actually materialize, Republicans want a say on the eventual agreement.
“If there is a final deal, and I hope there is, it should come to the Senate for approval,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told reporters on Tuesday.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said if the final agreement is a treaty — and it “sounds like a treaty,” he said — then it “certainly seems like” the deal should be subject to a vote by Congress.
And Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, echoed his colleagues.
For now, it appears Trump agrees with Senate Republicans.
During a bilateral meeting at the Group of Seven (G7) summit in France on Tuesday, Trump suggested he would be open to sending the eventual deal to Congress. “I wouldn’t mind,” he said.
“I never thought about sending. Never even thought about it,” Trump added. “But I will — I will send it to Congress. I like the idea.”
Trump’s comments quickly made their way to Washington, where Republican senators like Lindsey Graham and Roger Marshall repeatedly pointed out that Trump said he would give Congress a vote.
“I hope he does,” Marshall said.
Despite the GOP desire for a vote, it’s far from clear Congress will ever hold one. For starters, the talks could fall apart before a final agreement is reached. And if the deal ultimately resembles elements of the Obama-era accord that Republicans long opposed, GOP leaders may be reluctant to force lawmakers into a politically fraught vote — particularly if Democrats line up against it.
The dynamic highlights a familiar tension on Capitol Hill.
For years — decades, even — lawmakers have talked about replacing the sweeping 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force with a more targeted authorization. The law has been used to justify dozens of military operations in more than 22 countries. But when it comes time to take ownership of a new war authorization, many in Congress seem content to defer to the president and the nearly 25-year-old law.
To be sure, there were some GOP voices on Tuesday who suggested a vote on Trump’s emerging Iran deal isn’t needed.
Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., argued that a law signed amid the debate over the Obama-era deal never explicitly required a vote — just congressional review.
“You might decide your opinion is we should vote on it, but there is no requirement that we do,” Schmitt said.
And some other Republican senators kept their cards close to their vest, insisting they need more information on the deal before asserting that a vote is necessary.
“Everybody’s got to see what it is first,” Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said. “None of us have seen it.”
Pressed on whether he wants a vote, regardless of the terms of the deal, the Oklahoma Republican offered a congressional truth: “It depends on what the deal is.”
Part of the insistence on a vote, Republicans say, is because the Iran nuclear deal brokered under President Barack Obama — formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA — wasn’t affirmed by Congress. That allowed Trump to singlehandedly dismantle it during his first administration.
This time, lawmakers say they want a deal to outlast the Trump presidency.
Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, said Congress should “absolutely” vote on the final agreement, if negotiators reach one.
Recommended
“That was one of the problems with President Obama’s deal,” Curtis said.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he thought it “makes more sense” to have Congress give any agreement its stamp of approval, pointing to Obama’s now defunct deal.
“Obama made a mistake when he didn’t do the work to have it rise to a level of a treaty, and I believe that we should here, otherwise it’s only good for two and a half years,” Tillis said.
“Why don’t we do the hard work of making sure that it has staying power?” he added.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle — particularly Republicans — would be happy to approve an Iran peace agreement that advances U.S. interests. Republicans are inclined to support Trump, and few lawmakers seem eager to prolong the Iran “excursion,” as the president has put it.
But approving a deal that’s less-than-stellar for the United States isn’t such a popular prospect. And congressional leaders might hesitate to put the agreement up for a vote out of fear that lawmakers may shoot it down.
A failed vote would put Trump and the United States in a difficult position.
Just having to vote on the deal could put lawmakers in a tough political spot of their own — and right before the midterm elections.
If the final agreement ends up resembling the Obama-era JCPOA, Republicans could be forced to either support a deal they’ve long criticized or risk drawing Trump’s ire. Neither choice is ideal.
Meanwhile, if Democrats vote against a final deal, they could face accusations that they don’t want the war to end. Some Republicans see political value in forcing Democrats to take a position.
“When there’s a deal, of course, put the Democrats on record,” Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, told MS NOW.
But if the final deal is one Republicans don’t love, don’t expect the agreement to come before Congress.
Already on Monday, several Republicans expressed nervousness about the early contours of a deal, as described in press reports about a yet-to-be released memorandum of understanding. And on Tuesday, the top Senate Republican — John Thune of South Dakota — said he had still not been briefed on the contents of the memorandum.
A handful of Republicans revealed to reporters that they had been in touch with senior U.S. officials to get some of their questions answered.
Moreno, for instance, said he was given some details about the agreement on Monday from Vice President JD Vance and White House peace envoy — and Trump son-in-law — Jared Kushner.
Asked about the delay in revealing the preliminary memorandum, Moreno insisted the Trump administration was just being “methodical,” in part so as not to upend the internal politics in Iran.
“It’s not going to kill everybody to just take a breath and wait until Friday,” Moreno said.
Kevin Frey
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.