Lawmakers and pro-Israel groups are calling on US President Donald Trump to ask Congress to review a recent memorandum of understanding (MoU) aimed at ending the US-Israel war with Iran.
They cite the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA) as a precedent. The law, passed in 2015, requires all agreements with Iran related to its nuclear program to be submitted to Congress for review and possible rejection.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The law went into effect when former US President Barack Obama was negotiating the now-defunct Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, and remains on the books.
U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham was one of the first lawmakers to invoke the law after the memo was released this week.
“Under our laws, the nuclear deal with Iran will be sent to Congress for review and vote. I look forward to reviewing the final product,” Graham, a longtime Iran hawk, said in a social media post Sunday.
Critics, including some Democrats and peace advocacy groups, question the renewed interest in Congress asserting its authority after Republicans repeatedly ignored it during the war.
Some see the push as an effort to shore up the memorandum’s legitimacy at a time when President Trump has faced criticism over its terms. Some have questioned whether Iranian hardliners are invoking INARA to encourage a return to war.
Here’s what you need to know about this debate.
What does the law say?
INARA creates requirements for any agreement between the United States and Iran “relating to Iran’s nuclear program,” regardless of its “form” or whether the agreement is legally binding.
Prior to its passage in 2015, bipartisan opponents of the JCPOA supported the bill. The agreement provided for Iran to reduce its nuclear program and comply with regular inspections in exchange for sanctions relief, but it was subsequently subject to the provisions of the same law.
The law requires the president to submit the agreement signed with Iran, along with related documents, to Congress within five days. This will trigger a 30-day approval period.
During that period, members of Congress can choose to pass a joint resolution of disapproval to terminate the agreement.
Still, such a resolution would be subject to a presidential veto. Therefore, for a resolution of disapproval to be successful, a two-thirds majority in both houses is required to override the veto, which is a very high hurdle.
During the period of Congressional review, the president “may not waive, suspend, reduce, reduce, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions against Iran under the provisions of the law or refrain from applying such sanctions pursuant to the agreement,” the law states.
These conditions could limit this week’s memorandum, as it also includes sanctions relief for Iran.
Does INARA apply to Memoranda of Understanding?
President Trump signaled he was open to sending the U.S.-Iran memorandum to Congress earlier this week, telling reporters, “I like the idea. I mean, who wouldn’t approve of it?”
But his administration has yet to do so. Administration officials have also not made clear whether they believe the memo is subject to law. After all, President Trump has frequently denied that his actions against Iran require Congressional approval.
This week’s memorandum calls for opening the Strait of Hormuz, lifting the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports and halting fighting on all fronts, including in Lebanon.
It would also immediately lift U.S. sanctions on Iran’s fossil fuel industry and begin negotiations over, among other things, the future of Iran’s nuclear program.
As part of the deal, the two sides agreed to maintain the “status quo” at the heart of the ongoing negotiations, with Iran pledging to dilute its highly enriched uranium “on-site,” although details will be determined during negotiations.
President Trump has yet to acknowledge INARA’s authority, but legal experts across the ideological spectrum argue that his memorandum falls under the law.
Tess Bridgman, President Obama’s general counsel, wrote that the law applies to “this new memorandum and any future definitive agreements that may be negotiated in the coming months.”
However, in an article published in the policy forum Just Security, she argues that INARA should be abolished so as not to impede ongoing diplomacy.
“INARA was never the appropriate way for Congress to engage with Iran’s nuclear program, and that is even more true today,” Bridgman wrote.
Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School and a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, also believes the memo should serve as a catalyst for rethinking INARA.
He also noted that President Trump’s pledge to “immediately” lift sanctions on Iran’s oil industry appears to contradict INARA.
“I do not believe that the president has the authority under domestic law to grant such an exemption,” Goldsmith wrote on the Executive Functions website.
Still, he doesn’t expect Congress or the judiciary to confront Trump on the issue.
Will President Trump abide by the law?
President Trump’s second term has been defined by a broad interpretation of executive powers.
The administration has so far ignored the U.S. Constitution’s provision that only Congress has the power to declare war.
President Trump has argued that Iran is an “imminent threat” to the United States and can launch a defensive attack without Congressional approval.
Administration officials also argued that the president was under no legal obligation to seek Congressional approval within 60 days of launching an attack. The war, which began on February 28, lasted nearly three and a half months.
In an interview with news outlet Axios on Thursday, Trump mused that the war taught him that his power as president “has no limits.”
It remains unclear whether President Trump will change course and accept the necessary diplomatic cooperation from Congress under INARA.
Bridgman argued in the article that Trump, whose party controls Congress, could ignore all or part of the law, especially when it comes to immediate sanctions relief.
However, Goldsmith said the administration could argue that the memorandum merely sets out the terms for reaching a final agreement and is not an agreement itself.
Goldsmith believes this argument is flawed, but noted that “it is doubtful that any agency would force a president to comply with INARA.”
Has there been renewed interest in Congressional oversight?
Several pro-Israel groups, including the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), have been among the loudest voices calling for Congressional involvement in the deal.
Since the start of the war, JINSA has defended Trump’s claim that Iran posed an “imminent threat” to the United States, thereby giving him the authority to attack without Congressional authorization.
But the group also called on Congress to pass an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to enforce his actions.
But Congress has repeatedly failed in its attempts to reassert the authority to drive the United States to war.
Since February, several war powers resolutions have been introduced to halt U.S. action against Iran and force President Trump to engage with Congress.
Initially, several AIPAC-backed Democrats left the party in opposition to these efforts, including Sen. John Fetterman, Rep. Jared Moskowitz, and Rep. Josh Gottheimer.
Moskowitz and Gottheimer ultimately changed their positions in March and voted in favor of one of the resolutions. But Congress has yet to pass a bill with enough votes to overcome President Trump’s final veto.
Meanwhile, Republicans in both the House and Senate have chosen to ignore a 60-day deadline in May that legally requires President Trump to get Congressional approval to continue military operations or end the fighting.
In a statement Friday, Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen characterized Republican support for INARA as evidence of hypocrisy.
“Suddenly, Republican senators who had been AWOL regarding their constitutional obligation to go to war with Iran are demanding that Congress do their part to stop the war,” he wrote.
“There’s a lot of warmongering going on.”
