[caption id="attachment_107851" align="alignright" width="175"] The new Republican-controlled Congress wants to poison the nuclear talks with Iran, Jim W. Dean says.[/caption]

THERE HAS been significant public debate about the recent letter I signed with 46 of my colleagues to the leaders of Iran. Citing the U.S. Constitution, the letter simply explains the fact that any agreement on Iran’s nuclear weapons program that is not approved by Congress may not last beyond the end of the President’s term. I signed this letter because, as your elected representative, I firmly believe the Senate should weigh in on any agreement on Iran’s nuclear program — particularly given the serious potential national security threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran.
It was Congress — in overwhelming bipartisan votes over the administration’s initial objections — that led the effort to impose tough sanctions on Iran, which brought Iran to the negotiating table. Without Congress’s leadership, it is unlikely that the administration would have anyone with whom to negotiate.
While there is no doubt the President plays a unique constitutional role in foreign affairs, our founding fathers clearly intended Congress to play a role, too. The Constitution explicitly grants the Senate the power to provide “advice and consent” in the ratification of treaties, and gives Congress the power to declare war and regulate commerce with foreign nations.
Then-Sen. Joseph Biden previously affirmed Congress’ role when he said in 2002 that “with the exception of the SALT I agreement, every significant arms control agreement during the past three decades has been transmitted to the Senate pursuant to the Treaty Clause of the Constitution.”
Despite Congress’ vital role, the administration plans to bypass Congress and instead go to the U.N. for approval of an Iran agreement. In addition to the constitutional concerns, this sets a deeply disturbing precedent for our democracy — and it suggests the administration doubts that the deal could withstand the scrutiny of the American people and their representatives in Congress.I and many of my Senate colleagues — on both sides of the aisle — are deeply concerned that the Obama administration appears so eager for a deal that it may be willing to accept terms that only delay, not dismantle, Iran’s nuclear program, while ignoring its continued support for terrorism around the world. This could leave Iran positioned to sprint toward a bomb when they decide to do so. That is why I helped introduce bipartisan legislation — the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 — authored by Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., to allow Congress to review any final agreement with Iran. President Obama quickly responded by threatening to veto it, underscoring his intent to circumvent Congress and prevent America’s elected representatives from exercising their oversight responsibility of the most important international arms control agreement since the end of the Cold War.
For years, Iran has consistently refused to come clean on its nuclear program. As recently as last month, the nuclear watchdog charged with monitoring Iran’s nuclear program cited ongoing concerns “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”
In addition, throughout the negotiations Iran has continued to support Assad’s murderous regime and terrorist organizations like Hezbollah; imprison American citizens; oppress its own people; and develop its Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Program — which our intelligence community says would be Iran’s preferred means of delivering a nuclear weapon.
One has to wonder why this administration is so eager to prevent Americans’ elected representatives from voting on a deal that has such enormous security implications for not just our country, but also for the entire world. If the administration believes that the deal it might reach with Tehran is a good deal, the administration should be ready and willing to submit it to Congress and defend it on the merits.
While the administration has sought to present a false choice between a mediocre deal and armed conflict, the truth is that a bad deal actually makes conflict with Iran more likely. The single most effective way to avoid war with Iran and to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran is to maintain the toughest possible sanctions until Iran verifiably and permanently ends its nuclear weapons program. Period.
If Congress has an opportunity to conduct oversight of this deal, it will almost certainly better protect the American people — and enjoy more credibility and durability — even after President Obama leaves office.
That is why I will continue to work across the aisle to exercise robust oversight over any agreement with Iran and to ensure a country that views the United States as “the Great Satan” does not acquire nuclear weapons.

By Union Leader