Why the U.S. Senate caved on Iran

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

WASHINGTON – It was a pivotal moment in the fight over Iran's nuclear program.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., huddled on the Senate floor for a long conversation.

Cruz wanted to delay that Thursday's vote disapproving President Obama's Iran deal, which was headed for certain defeat.

The senator had another plan.

Cruz believed the doomed disapproval measure would be just a show vote designed to allow GOP senators to publicly proclaim their opposition to the deal without doing anything to actually try to stop it. He was pitching an alternative plan he believed had some real teeth and was trying to convince his party's leader there was no reason not to at least give it a try.

Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

As an attorney, the Texan had successfully persuaded U.S. Supreme Court justices, but he was unable to move McConnell.

Cruz stalked off and the die was cast.

What did McConnell say to Cruz?

What reason did the leader give not to at least try something other than the futile disapproval vote?

WND asked a conservative Senate aide what McConnell had said to Cruz.

It wasn't worth the effort, was the gist.

The aide confided to WND an exasperated sense of deja vu with the McConnell strategy, calling it, "Same stuff, different day."

The aide parodied the leader's approach as, "We don't have the votes so we shouldn't even try to fight. That's McConnell's answer to everything."

So, what made the Cruz plan not worth the effort?

The plan McConnell dismissed basically had three points:

Offer a bill to approve the deal instead of one disapproving of it. Either bill would be doomed because the GOP did not have the votes to overcome a filibuster, but that would put Democrats on record as approving Obama's deal with Iran.

Vote on a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the deal would never be ratified if offered as a treaty. (The Constitution requires two-thirds of the Senate to approve international agreements important enough to be regarded as treaties, but Obama simply ignored that, knowing the deal would be rejected.)

And warn banks holding frozen Iranian funds, if that $100 billion was released under the Obama deal, it would be against the law because Congress had not approved it, and CEOs could be liable for billions in lawsuits.

WND asked a Senate leadership aide, why not at least try the Cruz plan?

WND pointed out the Cruz strategy of replacing the disapproval bill with one requiring approval mirrored the strategy GOP leadership used in the effort to defund Planned Parenthood. Leadership did not want to risk attaching a defunding amendment to an upcoming spending bill, fearing it would not get by a Democratic filibuster and thus trigger a government shutdown which the media would blame on Republicans.

Instead, the GOP offered a stand-alone bill defunding Planned Parenthood that the Senate ledaership aide had previously acknowledged to WND was a losing effort from the start because the GOP does not have a filibuster-proof majority of 60 votes in the Senate.

But, it was described by the aide as worth the effort.

"That vote allowed us to put the Democrats on the record for standing by Planned Parenthood,” the aide told WND just 10 days ago.

Wouldn't the same logic apply to the Cruz plan to offer a bill requiring Democrats approve the Iran deal, by putting them on the record as supporting a plan favored by only 25 percent of the American public?

WND asked the Senate leadership aide, was there not some value in making Democrats vote against a bill approving the deal?

"Think of it this way," replied the leadership aide, "if we filibustered a resolution of approval what would the headline be?"

The implication was Senate Republicans would be blamed for obstruction.

The leadership aide maintained the disapproval vote served its purpose because, "They own this – all the Democrats. They stood behind the President to block even a straight up or down vote on the agreement."

"And even if we had beaten them and gotten 60 (votes needed to stop a filibuster), the President would have vetoed the bill and we would not have had the two-thirds (67 votes) to override a veto."

But, the conservative Senate aide pointed out to WND what he considered a glaring inconsistency in that line of thinking.

"They claim that forcing the Democrats to vote no on the Iran deal causes them to own it, but, somehow, they also claim that forcing Democrats to vote no on a budget deal causes the GOP to own a shutdown?"

"They don't even follow their own logic," the conservative Senate aide added.

Cruz was among the conservatives who argued, instead of taking up a bill to disapprove the Iran deal, Congress should merely announce the agreement could not go into effect because the administration had violated the law by not providing the full text of the deal for review, as required by the recent Corker bill. That is because the administration never provided Congress secret side deals on the details of nuclear sites inspections.

The leadership aide agreed that meant the administration will miss the 60-day deadline for providing the full text for Congressional review.

But, the aide observed, the White House had said just the day before, "[T]hey are moving ahead whatever we think or say, and whether or not we think they have or haven’t complied."

GOP Senate Leaders: Conference Vice Chair, Sen. Roy Blunt. R-Mo.; Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Conference Chair Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.; Majority Whip Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas

"In other words, they don’t care. They are drawing down sanctions next week when the deadline hits. What recourse do we have?"

The GOP leadership is banking on Republicans winning the White House in 2016 and that a new president will invalidate Obama's deal and reinstate sanctions against Iran.

But that would be too late to prevent world's leading state sponsor of terrorism from receiving $100 billion in unfrozen assets.

Wasn't the immediate pressing need to try to stop that?

WND asked the leadership aide, was there a reason not to try to put the fear of God into banks, as Cruz proposed, that releasing the frozen funds now would expose them to multi-billion dollar lawsuits later?

The leadership aide simply dismissed that prospect by remarking, "Can't speak to how that would work."

The aide also described it as useless for the Senate to simply declare the deal invalid, because it is not a treaty. He further stated, "the White House has already said they will act whether or not Congress votes to disapprove of the deal."

Well, then why not try every means at the the Senate's disposal, including the Cruz plan?

The aide put the emphasis on winning the fight for public opinion and suggested the Democrats had been damaged.

"Ultimately you are either for or against (the deal.) We are against – every single Republican opposes it."

The aide added, "Democrats in the Senate just threw themselves in front of the bus of public opinion to take one for Barack Obama."

Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

So the battle for public opinion may have been won.

But the fight to stop the Iran deal was lost.

Cruz would argue the fight had not even been fought.

At a large rally to stop the Iran deal Wednesday on Capitol Hill, Cruz told the crowd, "There are two men in Washington, D.C., who can defeat this deal. Their names are Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker John Boehner."

He insisted, because the Obama administration had not provided the secret side deals to Congress for review, "[A]ll that has to happen is for Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to say, ‘The congressional review period has not started. Under federal law it is illegal for Obama to lift sanctions.'"

“Mitch McConnell and John Boehner can stop this deal if they simply enforce ... federal law.”

A fellow conservative, former U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told WND at the rally, "President Obama is complicit in putting a nuclear bomb in Iran's hands. But so is the Republican leadership, I am sorry to say."

So, why didn't GOP Senate leaders employ every means to oppose President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran?

The answer may be ironic.

According to Republicans, Democrats put party politics above national security by supporting Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.

But according to conservatives, Republican senators did the very same thing by opposing the Cruz plan.

GOP party leaders are, of course, eager to recapture the White House in 2016. They are also extremely sensitive to the fact the party will have to defend 24 Senate seats.

The overriding concern about public opinion was plainly evidenced when McConnell told CNN on Sept. 11 the GOP would not attach a measure defunding Planned Parenthood to a budget bill because of the risk of taking blame for a potential government shutdown.

"Shutting down the government is something the American people overwhelmingly oppose, and we will not be doing that," said the leader.

Such statements may explain why many conservatives suspect GOP leadership is more concerned with headlines than with results.

And now, the Senate fight against the Iran deal is over.

But, the fight to win the headlines goes on.

Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth