Politico, 7 July 2015
Maybe John Kerry isn’t desperate for an Iran nuclear deal after all
As negotiators barreled toward a self-imposed Tuesday deadline, skeptics of the talks urged the secretary of state not to let time constraints shape his actions or lead to unnecessary U.S. concessions. Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he’d told Kerry not to worry about his legacy, and that walking away from a bad deal with Iran could be just as historic an achievement as reaching an accord.
By mid-Tuesday in Vienna, U.S. and European officials effectively nixed the deadline but said they’d keep talking.
The Iranians, meanwhile, confirmed demands that seemed designed to pressure the Americans: asking that the U.N. arms embargo on their country and sanctions targeting its ballistic missile program be lifted. To add a sense of urgency for the U.S., if a deal is submitted to Congress after Thursday — but before Sept. 7 — Congress will get an extra 30 days to review it.
In recent days, Kerry has stiffened the American stance, at least publicly, warning that the negotiations “could go either way” and that the U.S. will walk away if necessary. The willingness to keep talking past Tuesday also suggests the Obama administration isn’t too worried about giving Congress more time to mull the deal.
“I think [Kerry’s] probably confident that he can come to an agreement but that he doesn’t care that much about this deadline or that deadline,” said Ilan Goldenberg, a former Obama administration official who specialized in the Middle East. “Politically, it plays well here to the criticism that Kerry’s willing to pursue a deal at any cost.
 Kerry’s mindset has been a key subject for critics of the talks with Iran, with some saying they worry he’s eager to cement his place in history by striking a deal.
In a sense, Kerry has more at stake than Obama when it comes to the Iran talks. During his 30-plus years in the public sphere, most of it in the Senate, he’s long been criticized for being more talk than action.
Throughout the talks, the U.S. has said that only nuclear-related sanctions would be lifted — not sanctions targeting Iran over its ballistic missile program, its support for terrorist groups or its human rights abuses.
The U.S. is loath to see Iran get new access to weapons of any kind because it could boost the Islamist government’s interference in Arab states such as Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
Iran is well aware of the pressure Congress could bring to bear on any deal, and its decision to bring up the arms embargo and ballistic missiles could be a bet that the U.S. will cave to some demands to avoid giving lawmakers extra time to scrutinize the agreement. Thanks to a law reluctantly signed by Obama, Congress gets at least 30 calendar days to review a deal. If the talks extend past July 9, Congress will have 60 days, in part to accommodate the summer recess in August.
The law, spearheaded by Corker, says only that the full text of an agreement must be “transmitted” to congressional leaders, and does not specify how, suggesting that negotiators could theoretically email an agreement just before midnight Eastern time on Thursday (or 6 a.m. Friday in Vienna).
Under the law, Congress must vote by the end of its review period on whether to approve the deal and allow the president to suspend U.S. sanctions on Tehran.
If the talks stretch through the summer — a distant but not impossible scenario — then the administration would gain a slight reprieve because Congress’ review period reverts back to 30 days if a deal is not reached and submitted by Sept. 7. By then, however, the administration would likely face more fundamental questions about whether Congress will pass new sanctions on Iran, and whether a deal is achievable at all.