The GOP House Freedom Caucus ‘Tortilla Coast gambit’ to delay the Iran deal is a fraud


TortillaCoastOn Wednesday, Arizona Congressman Matt Salmon and the farther-far-right GOP “House Freedom Caucus” of which he is a member, Freedom is just another word for another wingnut group, forced the Tan Man, Weeper of the House John Boehner, to pull a scheduled procedural vote on the P5+1 world powers nuclear agreement with Iran because of an already debunked conspiracy theory about IAEA “secret” side deals with Iran that have been circulating in the conservative media entertainment complex for the past two months.

The House went into recess so that these wingnut conspirators could meet again at the Tortilla Coast and plot their next insane move. GOP House Freedom Caucus forces delay in vote on Iran deal.

After several nacho platters and pitchers of cerveza — and I’m guessing there had to have been several rounds of tequila shots — this is the hair-brained scheme that these wingnut conspirators came up with. House GOP changes course on Iran after conservative revolt:

House Republicans are changing course to take up a last-minute plan to oppose the Iran nuclear deal following a revolt from some of the conference’s conservative members.

Instead of a single vote to disapprove the deal, the House will now hold three separate votes on the agreement.

One would be a resolution to approve the deal — which is sure to fail and, in the process, force many Democrats to break with the White House.

The second would be to express a sense of the House that the Obama administration has not met the requirements of the Iran review legislation by failing to give lawmakers the text of separate agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Those bilateral side deals, which concern the details of inspections at some Iranian sites, are at the center of the House’s uprising over the Iran pact

Finally, the House would vote to prevent the U.S. from lifting sanctions on Iran as part of complying with the nuclear deal.

The House is still expected to finish votes regarding Iran on Friday, which is the 14th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks.

Without the text of the side deals, some House Republicans say, the 60-day clock for reviewing the Iran deal hasn’t begun to tick.

“This clock has not started,” Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) insisted. “It doesn’t start until the deal is handed over and we haven’t seen the deal. It’s very simple.”

Under legislation approved earlier this year, Congress has 60 days to review the deal before the White House can begin lifting sanctions on Tehran. In return for sanctions relief, Iran has agreed to place limits upon its nuclear program and open it up to inspectors.

The White House has rejected calls to hand over evidence of the side deals, saying it doesn’t have the text to share. The administration has maintained that the IAEA’s decision to keep those documents secret is routine and central to how the international agency works.

“We ask for something the White House does not have, see, and the White House cannot produce it because it does not have any jurisdiction over the IAEA, see, and the IAEA agreements are always secret as part of its normal routine so the IAEA is not going to produce it, see, so then we all go on FAUX News and say that the president has failed to provide us with all of the documents so we cannot vote, and we are going to sue him for being a tyrant, and maybe impeach him! Oh, and don’t forget the fundraising that we can do off of this. Waddaya all think?” And the drunken fools excitedly responded, “Let’s do it! Who’s buying the next round?

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest panned the GOP’s ‘Tortilla Coast gambit’ on Iran:

“They essentially had 60 days to play the spoiler,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters. “Congress’s opportunity to play that role will expire next week. That will be good news, and it will mean the international community can move forward with implementing the agreement.”
Lawmakers face a Sept. 17 deadline to vote on the deal before the Obama administration can begin taking steps to implement it.
Earnest dismissed a complicated legislative scheme set up by House Republicans to derail the agreement as “the Tortilla Coast gambit,” named after a Capitol Hill restaurant popular with conservative lawmakers.

Max Fisher at begs to differ, The GOP’s new Iran deal plan is cynical, dishonest, and politically brilliant (as in an “evil genius” kind of way):

Republican lawmakers, having lost the battle to block the Iran nuclear deal in Congress, appear to be considering a new strategy: turn the deal into a never-ending political circus. [The very reason for the existence of the conservative media entertainment complex.]

The old and busted GOP plan was to vote on a measure formally disapproving of the Iran nuclear deal. Republicans could express their rejection of the deal, forcing President Obama to veto their resolution. That way they’d get to oppose the deal without actually taking responsibility for finding an alternative. But Obama got more supporters in the Senate than was expected — enough that he won’t have to veto — and the resolution became something of an embarrassment for Republicans.

So now the new hotness among Republicans is that they shouldn’t bother voting to disapprove of the Iran nuclear deal, and instead should vote for a resolution that, according to Politico’s Jake Sherman, “would delay a disapproval vote because they believe Obama has not disclosed some elements of the deal.” The entire caucus is not yet on board, but it looks like they’re moving in this direction.

The Washington Post‘s Greg Sargent called this “snatching defeat from the jaws of defeat,” which is a great line, but to me this looks like a much stronger political strategy for Republicans, even if it is also cynical and dishonest. So much stronger, in fact, that I’m sort of surprised they’re only coming around to it now.

Republicans, in this new plan, would argue that President Obama didn’t live up to his promise to fully inform Congress about the Iran nuclear deal, so therefore Congress cannot vote on whether to approve the deal.

This is not really true, but that’s beside the point. The point is that Republicans don’t like their current strategy because it means, after they vote on their doomed resolution, they will have conceded the Iran deal as politically legitimate.

This new strategy would allow Republicans to argue in perpetuity that the Iran nuclear deal is somehow illegitimate, without ever actually proving that. It would create a definitionally irresolvable political “controversy” over the deal, allowing Republicans to raise money and hold hearings and go on conservative talk radio for many years to come, making conspiratorial claims about the Obama administration withholding some vital information.

It would look, in other words, a lot like Republicans’ years-long political campaign over Benghazi. In that campaign, the focus was almost never on actual US mistakes in Libya — which are substantial but complex — but rather was on misleading conspiracy theories and nonsense political controversies.

Similarly, this new GOP anti-deal strategy would let them avoid the actual substance of the Iran deal, and instead focus on dark claims about self-inspections and the like. This not only lets Republicans direct the focus to talk-radio-friendly conspiracy theories, but also allows them to assert, for years to come, that Obama never followed correct procedure on getting congressional approval, and thus that the Iran deal is illegitimate.

The first such conspiracy theory they appear to be going with — the first of many, I am sure — is the alleged “secret side deal.”

The “secret side deal” controversy, explained

Republicans’ argument is basically this: President Obama promised to send Congress the full text of the Iran nuclear once it was reached (true), after which Congress has 60 days to review before voting on whether to disapprove of the deal (true), but Obama did not technically complete his end of the bargain (false) because he did not send Congress the text of the “secret side deal” with Iran (complicated; see below). Therefore the 60-day congressional review never happened (false), thus the deal is illegitimate (false).

The alleged “secret side deal” is an agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency (the UN nuclear watchdog) and Iran over how the IAEA will conduct certain inspections and verification procedures of Iranian facilities, as well as IAEA investigations into past elements of Iran’s nuclear program that may have had a military component.

The IAEA has such agreements with every country where it works, including the United States. Because the IAEA wants as much access as possible, and because countries do not necessarily want the details of their nuclear facilities broadcast to the world, the details of these agreements are typically secret. That is the case with the IAEA’s agreement with Iran.

It is not a “side deal,” nor is its existence secret; the nuclear deal requires the IAEA to monitor Iranian facilities, so naturally the IAEA was going to work out the logistical details of that with Tehran. As nuclear experts Mark Hibbs and Thomas Shea explained recently in the Hill, anyone with the most basic knowledge of the IAEA understands that this is how it works, and that this secrecy ultimately helps the IAEA — and thus the US — against Iran’s nuclear program:

The IAEA has safeguards agreement with 180 countries. All have similar information protection provisions. Without these, governments would not open their nuclear programs for multilateral oversight. So IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano was acting by the book on August 5 when he told members of Congress that he couldn’t share with them the details of a verification protocol the IAEA had negotiated with Iran as part of a bilateral “roadmap” to address unresolved allegations about Iran’s nuclear behavior.

Like Iran, the United States has a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. Were lawmakers from Iran’s Majlis to ask the IAEA to see documents concerning its negotiations with the United States, members of Congress would presumably be pleased to hear that Amano’s answer would also be no. Of course, Iran may choose to share its information with other parties and, in this case, Iran provided details of the roadmap to negotiators from the U.S. Department of State. Congress may not be happy that it is not in the loop, but it is not up to the IAEA to decide whether to share information about where and how its personnel do their work in Iran.

Republicans are now pretending that this is all a big surprise and that they have a right to see the complete text of any IAEA agreements. In fact, there is nothing guaranteeing Congress review over IAEA agreements with Iran. The IAEA would never agree to such a thing (fortunately for the US, which has its own agreements with the IAEA), and neither would the Obama administration.

Don’t take my word for it: You can read, for yourself, the law that Congress passed articulating its authority to disapprove the Iran deal. Section 135 describes the congressional review period, and specifically articulates the documents that the Obama administration is required to give Congress. There is nothing in there about the text of IAEA safeguards agreements with Iran.

The “secret side deal” controversy is designed to be impossible to resolve

It seems likely that Republicans will counter this by arguing that they didn’t put that into the law because they didn’t anticipate such IAEA agreements. But, to be clear, this is a lie. The IAEA has safeguards agreements with 180 countries; it is a standard practice. The Iran nuclear deal requires the IAEA to conduct extensive monitoring and verification of Iranian facilities, so by definition it would compel the IAEA to work out safeguards agreements with Iran.

The next line of Republican argumentation is going to be that, sure, IAEA safeguards agreements are routine, and sure it is standard practice that the text of such agreements is not opened up to curious third parties such as the US Congress. But someone will inevitably leak some prejudicial and selective details to make those agreements look bad — it’s already happened — which Republicans will seize on to argue that there are “questions” about this particular IAEA agreement or another and thus they must be granted permission to see it.

But they know this demand would be impossible: The moment the IAEA starts opening up its safeguards agreements to satisfy domestic political controversies in one country or another, its credibility will be devastated.

Imagine you are a head of state in some country with a nuclear program: Would you let in nuclear inspectors, knowing that one day if American lawmakers decide to get up in arms, they could compel the IAEA to release all sorts of secret details about your country’s facilities? Maybe you still would, but maybe you wouldn’t, and that’s a risk the IAEA can’t take.

The controversy is thus by definition impossible to resolve. And that’s precisely the point. Republicans can stir up controversy about the IAEA agreements, but the IAEA can never fully address that controversy without publishing documents and thus destroying its own credibility. Thus Republicans know they can hammer at this for years, sending out fundraising emails and going on talk radio to decry the Obama administration’s nefarious dealings, with no fear that the controversy will ever go away.

The future of Republican opposition to the Iran nuclear deal will thus probably look something like the never-ending political circus over the Benghazi attacks.

There will be various conspiracy theories and outrage stories that will live on for years in right-wing media long after they have been debunked.

* * *

Maybe a House investigation will find some emails from one White House official to another explaining how to counter Republican arguments, and this will be spun up as another “talking points” controversy.

* * *

There may even be a symbolic legal challenge or two; perhaps a state-level attorney general will try to find standing to file a case against Secretary of State John Kerry over nuclear deal implementation.

The point will not merely be to score political points, although that’s certainly part of it. The point will be to allow Republicans to oppose the Iran nuclear deal not based on the specific text of the deal — anti-deal groups have been losing this argument quite badly — but rather by arguing that the deal is illegitimate on a technicality. They can thus continue to oppose the nuclear deal without having to provide a realistic alternative, and because the controversy is irresolvable they can continue to mine it for years to come. It allows them to evade responsibility on a complex foreign policy issue, which they never really wanted, and settle in as pure opposition.

This is what you get when you have a political party that exists only for the purpose of providing grist for the mighty Wurlitzer of the right-wing noise machine of the conservative media entertainment complex. These people have no interest in or capability of actually governing responsibly.


Comments are closed.