AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Following the signing of the recent U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding to end the war, the debate over the U.S. president's authority and Congress's role in approving or rejecting the agreement has once again emerged in American political and legal circles. The core of this dispute is the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA), passed in 2015 during the Obama administration's nuclear negotiations (JCPOA), which remains legally valid.
Under this law, any agreement between the United States and Iran related to Iran's nuclear program, regardless of its form or binding nature, must be submitted to Congress within five days of signing. Following that, a 30-day review period begins, during which lawmakers can block implementation by passing a resolution of disapproval. The president retains the right to veto such a resolution, and overturning a veto requires a two-thirds vote of both chambers, a politically difficult prospect.
The significance of this law lies in the fact that during the congressional review period, the president is not permitted to suspend, reduce, or waive statutory sanctions against Iran. This could be particularly important for the recent memorandum, as one of its provisions involves the reduction or lifting of certain U.S. sanctions against Iran, especially in the energy sector.
According to published provisions of the potential memorandum, the two sides have agreed to halt hostilities, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, lift the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports, begin negotiations on the future of Iran's nuclear program, and maintain the current status of nuclear activities during negotiations until a final mechanism is determined.
Nevertheless, the Trump administration has so far not submitted the memorandum to Congress for review, nor has it announced its official position on whether INARA applies to this document. Trump has stated that he would welcome submitting the agreement to Congress, but has repeatedly emphasized in recent months that he does not need congressional authorization for his actions against Iran.
In contrast, a number of legal experts from across the political spectrum believe the memorandum is subject to the 2015 law. Tess Bridgeman, a former White House legal advisor during the Obama administration, has stated that both this memorandum and any potential final agreement with Iran must be submitted to Congress under the law, although she believes INARA itself is now an obstacle to diplomacy and should be repealed.
Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, also agrees with this interpretation, emphasizing that the Trump administration's pledge to immediately lift some sanctions on Iran may conflict with the restrictions set forth in INARA. However, he considers it unlikely that Congress or the judiciary could compel the president to enforce this law.
This issue arises as Trump's second term has been marked by an expansion of executive authority. During the war with Iran, his administration argued that the president had the authority to initiate military operations without congressional authorization on the grounds of an "imminent threat." The White House also rejected the legal requirement to obtain congressional authorization after 60 days of military operations.
On the other hand, pro-Israel groups, including the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), are now urging Congress to play an active role in reviewing the memorandum. This comes despite the fact that these same groups had supported broad executive authority for military action without congressional approval at the start of the warو a position that has drawn criticism from some Democratic lawmakers.
Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen has described this shift as evidence of Republican double standards, noting that those who remained silent about Congress's legal authority at the start of the war are now emphasizing congressional involvement in ending it. Thus, in addition to the diplomatic dimensions of the memorandum, the dispute over the limits of presidential authority and the role of Congress has become one of the most significant political and legal debates in the United States.
**************
End/ 345E
