This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/politics/obama-gains-support-of-senator-bob-casey-for-iran-deal.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Obama Gains Support of Two Senators for Iran Nuclear Deal 2 Key Senators Throw Their Support Behind Iran Nuclear Pact
(about 1 hour later)
WASHINGTON — Two Democratic senators threw crucial support behind the Iran nuclear deal on Tuesday, almost assuring that President Obama would have the votes to overcome congressional opponents seeking to derail the landmark accord. WASHINGTON — President Obama all but clinched victory for his Iran nuclear deal on Tuesday, as two Democratic senators threw crucial support behind the landmark accord.
The announcements by the senators, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Chris Coons of Delaware, came a week before the Senate returned to formally debate a Republican resolution disapproving the accord among Iran and six world powers. The announcements by the senators, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Chris Coons of Delaware, came a week before the Senate was to formally debate a Republican resolution disapproving the agreement between Iran and six world powers. Mr. Obama would veto any such resolution, and with further announcements of support for the accord expected as soon as Wednesday, any move to override him would almost certainly fail.
With the support of Mr. Casey and Mr. Coons, the chances of Congress torpedoing it are becoming ever more slim. Mr. Coons, an outspoken voice on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, received personal, written assurances from Mr. Obama on Tuesday on a range of concerns before throwing his weight behind the deal. Mr. Coons’s decision in particular is likely to have resonance with the few remaining undecided Democrats. As an outspoken member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he expressed grave concerns about the deal before ultimately deciding any alternative would be far worse.
In the House, Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee and an important voice in his party, also came out in favor of the deal on Tuesday. Despite the continuing rancor on Capitol Hill, there was also growing recognition, even among some accord opponents, that the other nations — Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia, and especially Iran — would be unwilling to renegotiate the agreement even if Congress formally rejected it.
The decisions by Mr. Coons and Mr. Casey were hardly made without reservations. The pledges of support by Mr. Casey and Mr. Coons meant the White House was just one vote short of the 34 needed to prevent a disapproval resolution from becoming law. Supporters of the agreement are now hoping to secure 41 votes to filibuster the resolution, ensuring the accord can be implemented without the drama of a presidential veto negating the will of Congress.
In a 17-page statement laying out his position, including a page and a half of footnotes, Mr. Casey expressed deep concern that Iran would not hold up its end of the bargain and that easing sanctions against Iran would end up funneling billions of dollars to terrorist groups in the Middle East. His unease underscored the political agony the Iran deal has created for lawmakers, particularly Mr. Obama’s fellow Democrats. In most cases, however, the support has been far less than enthusiastic as lawmakers have confronted one of the most deeply divisive policy debates of modern times, with the security of Israel and the stability of the Middle East potentially at stake.
For the president, however, it matters little how many footnotes, asterisks or other caveats come with the pledges of support. And with Mr. Casey on board, the White House appeared to be just one vote short of 34 needed in the Senate to sustain a veto should opponents of the deal manage to adopt legislation to block it. And with only two Senate Democrats publicly opposed so far — Chuck Schumer of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey — the resolution of disapproval may well fall short of the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster. Mr. Casey, who announced his decision in a 17-page memo including a page and a half of footnotes, said in an interview that he still had many deep reservations, especially doubts that Iran would keep up its end of the bargain. But he said he ultimately concluded that it was in the national security interests of the United States to support the agreement.
“This agreement will substantially constrain the Iranian nuclear program for its duration, and compared with all realistic alternatives, it is the best option available to us at this time,” he wrote.“This agreement will substantially constrain the Iranian nuclear program for its duration, and compared with all realistic alternatives, it is the best option available to us at this time,” he wrote.
Mr. Casey and Mr. Coons, like many of their colleagues, sought to demonstrate just how much care and concern they had taken in reaching a decision on the Iran deal. Mr. Casey said that after years of leading other countries in sanctioning Iran over its nuclear program, the United States simply could not walk away from the deal, especially when it was clear that the other five powers were prepared to move forward in any event.
Mr. Coons said in a speech at the University of Delaware that he had attended more than a dozen hearings and classified briefings and had even “read and reread the dense text of the agreement itself.” “Every indication I got was that it wasn’t going to work to get them back to the table,” Mr. Casey said. “They made it very clear that maintaining sanctions and renegotiating wasn’t going to work, and part of that was just the practical reality.”
In many cases, the lawmakers stressed their concerns for the security of Israel. The support from Mr. Coons was especially important because he had been among the most skeptical voices in the debate over the Iran accord. He added, “To have led that effort and then to just say, ‘We’re going to walk away,’ it just doesn’t make sense.”
In his speech on Tuesday, Mr. Coons echoed his earlier skepticism. “Frankly, this is not the agreement I had hoped for,” he said, adding that he was troubled by “different interpretations of key terms” in the agreement. Mr. Coons said in a speech at the University of Delaware on Tuesday that just that morning he had received personal, written assurances from Mr. Obama on a range of concerns before finally deciding to endorse the deal.
“I remain deeply concerned about our ability to hold Iran to the terms of this deal as we understand them,” Mr. Coons said, and noted Iran’s “past cheating” on previous agreements, as well as Iran’s support of terrorist groups and its jailing of a reporter for The Washington Post. In the House, Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee and an important voice in his party, also came out in favor of the deal on Tuesday. And Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York, came out in support of the accord despite his past reliance on pro-Israel groups for his political rise.
Still, with backing from Mr. Coons, the White House closing in on a major victory to secure an accord that stands the chance of becoming a cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s legacy on foreign policy. The unease expressed by supporters — including concerns about the possibility that easing sanctions would end up funneling billions of dollars to Mideast terrorist groups — underscored the political agony that the nuclear deal has created for lawmakers, particularly Mr. Obama’s fellow Democrats.
All along, opponents of the accord have faced steep obstacles. They need 60 votes in the Senate for a resolution of disapproval to overcome a filibuster by supporters of the accord. But even if the opponents get that, the president will veto the resolution. The opponents would then have to secure the votes of two-thirds of the lawmakers in both chambers to override the veto. For the president, however, it mattered little how many footnotes, asterisks or other caveats come with the pledges of support.
And with only two Senate Democrats — Charles E Schumer of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey — publicly opposed so far, it seemed the resolution of disapproval could fall well short of the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster.
Mr. Casey and Mr. Coons, like many of their colleagues, sought to demonstrate just how much care and concern they had taken in reaching a decision about the Iran deal.
Mr. Coons, in his speech, said that he had attended more than a dozen hearings and classified briefings and had even “read and reread the dense text of the agreement itself.”
In many cases, the lawmakers stressed their concerns for the security of Israel.
The support from Mr. Coons may prove to be especially important. “Frankly, this is not the agreement I had hoped for,” he said, echoing doubts he has expressed for weeks. He added that he was troubled by “different interpretations of key terms” in the agreement.
“I remain deeply concerned about our ability to hold Iran to the terms of this deal as we understand them,” Mr. Coons said, pointing to Iran’s “past cheating” on previous agreements, its support of terrorist groups and its jailing of a reporter for The Washington Post.
All along, opponents of the accord have faced steep obstacles.
To start, they need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster and get a vote on the resolution of disapproval. And even if the opponents succeeded in passing the resolution, Mr. Obama would veto it. Then, opponents would have to secure the votes of two-thirds of the lawmakers in both chambers to override the veto.
In the Senate, that meant the White House needed 34 votes to be assured of sustaining a veto – a number that was clearly in reach.
Mr. Casey said he believed there were enough Democratic votes to sustain a veto, and that the White House had succeeded in making the case that the nuclear deal was worthy of support on the merits.
“I think they made a credible case that we face this threat in the near term and you have got to have a strategy against it,” he said. “You can’t just have tough talk or statements about trying to reimpose sanctions.”
House Democrats have also orchestrated a steady flow of statements of support, and on Tuesday the president received a surprise.
The decision by Mr. Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat known for his close ties with pro-Israel advocacy groups, showed just how far the political winds have shifted in Mr. Obama’s favor.
Mr. Jeffries has been watched closely as an indicator of the crosswinds facing Democrats around the Iran vote: His liberal district supported Mr. Obama enthusiastically, but Mr. Jeffries has also received strenuous support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and like-minded groups since his first campaign for Congress in 2012. Those groups have spent millions of dollars this summer on efforts to kill the nuclear accord.