Corker's neutrality on Iran deal giving way to criticism

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bob Corker, who was largely neutral on a potential nuclear deal with Iran during his successful fight to guarantee Congress a vote on it, has become more critical in recent days.

Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has questioned Secretary of State John Kerry's negotiating skills and has challenged President Obama's assertion that failing to reach a deal with Iran could lead to war.

Most recently, Corker accused the Obama administration of withholding information about Iran's nuclear capabilities 10 years from now, after any possible deal expires.

"I think there are legitimate concerns about what happens after year 10, and it makes me concerned that their unwillingness to share that with us means they think it's something that will undermine the American people's confidence in what they're doing," Corker said during a committee hearing on Wednesday.

The Tennessee Republican has scheduled public hearings and classified briefings for his committee throughout June, in case the six countries negotiating with Iran — known collectively as the P5+1 — reach an agreement by their self-imposed June 30 deadline.

Any deal would be subject to congressional review, thanks to a law drafted by Corker that lets lawmakers vote on whether congressionally imposed sanctions on Iran should be lifted in exchange for limiting Iran's nuclear program to peaceful, civilian purposes.

Officially, Corker is rooting for a deal. And he views criticism from Capitol Hill as helpful to the international negotiations.

"I hope the P5+1 come up with an agreement that stands the test of time," Corker said recently. "And the questions that Congress is now raising will be very beneficial in getting a deal that stands the test of time."

But his questions have become sharper in recent weeks.

Corker said he's asked officials at the Energy Department, State Department and White House to turn over a document that he says outlines what Iran's nuclear program will look like in 10 years — after the pending deal has run its course — and how close Iran will be to developing a nuclear weapon at that point.

The framework of a proposed deal, announced in April, refers to such an outline.

"For ten years, Iran will limit domestic enrichment capacity and research and development — ensuring a breakout timeline of at least one year," according to the framework announced by Obama. "Beyond that, Iran will be bound by its longer-term enrichment and enrichment research and development plan it shared with the P5+1."

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said when asked about Corker's request that Congress will continue to be briefed extensively on the negotiations.

"There are no finally agreed documents since negotiations are not complete," Harf said. "The administration will, of course, share all documents in a final agreement with Congress, as consistent with our obligations."

Martin Indyk, executive vice president of the Brookings Institution and former ambassador to Israel, told the Foreign Relations Committee there is great concern, especially in Israel, about Iran's capabilities 10 or 15 years from now, when the country presumably will have a legitimate civilian nuclear power program and not be subject to sanctions.

"But we will also by then have much greater visibility into Iran's nuclear program, much greater ability to detect any attempt to switch from a civil to a military nuclear program, and an American president will have all the current military capabilities and much more by then to deal with an Iranian breakout, should they attempt one," Indyk said.

Under the new law drafted by Corker with strong bipartisan support, Congress will have up to 52 days to review any nuclear deal with Iran. The timeline allows for votes to approve or disapprove any deal, a potential veto and an attempt to override the veto. The deadline is extended if the White House waits until after July 10 to submit the full deal and all related classified material.

Most lawmakers, including Corker, are reserving judgment until details of the pending deal are revealed.

Meanwhile, Corker continues to challenge the Obama administration's handling of the negotiations.

Kerry, a top negotiator for the U.S., "appears to be a guy who just wants a deal, whatever it takes," Corker told reporters in May.

"The least little thing Iran brings up, he's so anxious to resolve and cause them not to be concerned," he said. "It feels rather perverse, if you will."

He's also disputing Obama's argument that failed negotiations or a rejected deal could prompt U.S. military action against Iran. Obama, in announcing the framework of a potential deal in April, said failure to reach a final agreement would mean either bombing Iran's nuclear facilities or hoping economic sanctions convince Iran to abandon any plans to develop nuclear weapons.

"Iran has shown no willingness to eliminate those aspects of their program that they maintain are for peaceful purposes, even in the face of unprecedented sanctions," Obama said. "Should negotiations collapse because we, the United States, rejected what the majority of the world considers a fair deal, what our scientists and nuclear experts suggest would give us confidence that they are not developing a nuclear weapon, it's doubtful that we can even keep our current international sanctions in place."

Corker called it a "false choice."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/06/05/corker-iran-deal/28533915