MN delegation reacts to Iran nuclear deal
Minnesota members of Congress are starting to react to the deal the Obama administration and other world powers announced Tuesday with Iran. The deal restricts Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions against the country.
Congress has some say in this deal. The Associated Press reports that Congress has a 60-day review period “during which Obama cannot make good on any concessions to the Iranians. U.S. lawmakers could hold a vote of disapproval and take further action.”
Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., was the first member of Minnesota’s congressional delegation to react to the news. He praised the deal as a way to improve peaceful relations with Iran:
Create a More Connected Minnesota
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.
“The historic agreement reached today proves the power of engagement over isolation — we can choose peace over war. The world is safer thanks to the patient diplomacy and determination of President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and our P5+1 negotiating partners. In the coming weeks, the focus will be on the U.S. Congress to see if Republicans take this deal away from the world. We will stop those who want to push us closer to war.”
But Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., criticized the plan as likely to cause deeper problems in the Middle East.
“The agreement as presented by the Administration removes permanent sanctions and provides billions of relief for the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism in exchange for a temporary delay of Iran’s nuclear activities without any real accountability – this falls far short of my expectations and even the President’s stated goals. After recently traveling to the Middle East and listening to our allies’ concerns about the possibility of a nuclear Iran and its efforts to destabilize the region, I am greatly concerned this agreement will further instability and legitimize the Iranian regime. I will be closely reviewing the details of the agreement, however no deal is better than a bad deal and I will not support a bad deal that weakens America’s national security.”
Rep. Rick Nolan, D-Minn., reacted positively, but said he wanted to take a closer look at the agreement.
“As I have said in the past, an agreement with Iran to prevent development of nuclear weapons is clearly preferable to doing nothing while Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons, or worse yet, launching a new war in the Middle East that would cost trillions of dollars and thousands of precious lives. Moreover, if Iran violates the agreement, the international sanctions that have crippled their national economy will snap back in place. That said, the agreement is more than 150 pages long, and I want to study it carefully before making a final judgment, as part of our Congressional responsibilities under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.”
Rep. Erik Paulsen, R-Minn., doesn't need to study the agreement any further. He gave it a swift thumbs-down.
“I support a diplomatic solution to find a peaceful end to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. However, over the past decades, Iran has repeatedly cheated and lied to the international community in its illicit pursuit of a nuclear bomb. Because of this deception, this deal should have included rigorous inspections and a verification process that gives the international community unfettered access to potential nuclear sites. It should have also required an end to enrichment capabilities and for Iran to fully disable their nuclear weapons program. In addition, the agreement should have ensured that any sanctions relief should be phased in through a slow and deliberate manner, rather than immediately removed.
“The deal announced by the administration today fails to achieve even one of these benchmarks and in a shocking turn of events, also includes the lifting of the U.N. Arms Embargo – something that makes a bad deal even worse. I can’t in good faith support an agreement that fails to even meet the minimum standards outlined by the Administration at the beginning of this process. Instead, more weapons will be given to the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism, putting the stability of the Middle East in jeopardy and threatening to create a new nuclear arms race. In addition, it puts our closest ally in the region, Israel, in grave danger.”
Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., wants to take time to study the deal.
“I applaud the President, Secretary Kerry, and our international allies for reaching this agreement. While the announcement of the deal is indeed historic, and the Administration and our allies should be commended for their tireless work, the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, will have the final say. We cannot accept a bad deal, nor can we allow ideology to undermine a good one. Congress must act in good faith, make the hard choices, and do the job we were elected to do. Over the coming days and weeks, I look forward to reviewing the deal vigorously.”
Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., wholeheartedly endorsed the deal.
“Denying Iran the ability to continue to develop a nuclear weapon with this verifiable agreement is a diplomatic triumph which enhances U.S. and global security. This agreement is the only alternative to an escalating, dangerous nuclear arms race that threatens the security of the American people. Unfortunately, critics in Congress, along with Republican presidential candidates, have started down the dangerous path of working to undermine this agreement to score partisan political points. If allowed to succeed, these hardliners threaten our national security by increasing the probability that Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon.
“With regard to Israel, the U.S. has an unshakable strategic commitment to the security of the Israeli people. This agreement does nothing to diminish Israel’s security. In fact, this agreement guarantees that Israel remains the only power with nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s ceaseless effort to undermine President Obama and an important national security priority only harms the U.S.-Israeli partnership.
“I applaud President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and Secretary Moniz for their tireless commitment to advancing America’s national security through diplomatic engagement. While there certainly remain issues beyond nuclear non-proliferation, such as the detention of innocent American citizens and on-going support for terrorist organizations, that requires action by Iran if improved diplomatic relations with the U.S. are to be achieved, this nuclear agreement has my support. If Congress decides to disapprove of the agreement I will vote to sustain President Obama’s veto.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., is in the take-time-to-look camp.
“Preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is one of the most important objectives of our national security policy, and I strongly supported the sanctions that helped bring Iran to the negotiating table. Now that an agreement has been reached, Congress has a solemn duty to thoroughly review it before making a decision. Critical components of the agreement that I will be closely examining include the verification measures; the process of lifting sanctions and the mechanism for re-imposing sanctions if Iran violates an agreement; and limitations on Iran’s research and development program.”
Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., also wants to take a closer look at the deal.
“This is a complex issue, and I’m glad that our negotiators have been able to reach an agreement. In the days to come, I will have to review the deal closely. Obviously, a diplomatic resolution to Iran’s nuclear program is preferable to military action. I hope that the deal will verifiably block Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.”
And Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Minn., doesn't like the deal.
“The American people should be extremely concerned by the P5 + 1 Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) agreement. This deal unleashes hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief, does little to stop Iran from remaining the world’s largest exporter of terrorism, nor does it prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. My constituents can rest assured that I will vote against the JCPOA, and to override a veto, if I am not completely convinced that this deal is in the best interest of the United States and the safety and security of the American people. Today, I am not convinced.”
Rep. Collin Peterson, DFL-MN, said he's going to analyze the deal closely.
"Congress now has a mandated 60 days to review this deal, details of which were finally released to us this morning. I take the responsibility of oversight very seriously. I plan to analyze the merits of the deal and the impact it will have our nation's security as well as the security of our allies."