against this bill are supporting the reality that the alternative is the possibility of war. that s what constrains congress if the corker bill becomes law. you re going to have democrats like schumer, like tim kaine who are faced with this choice. if they re thinking about disapproving an iran deal which would require a two-thirds vote, because the president would be able to veto the disapproval, what would happen if they disapprove the deal? we have all of our partners who are not likely to continue to sign on to the sanctions regime if the deal is rejected. that would mean if you blow up the deal, the only option that would be left to contain iran, which presumably will proceed to develop a nuclear bomb, given that they have nothing to gain anymore out of negotiations that aren t working, the only option that would be left would be a military option, that would make i think it s also worth pointing out that obama has a do be job here. the numbers phyllis cited are accurate. th
ability of the united states to implement the agreement successfully, and it does interfere with a scope of responsibilities. it s clear within the purview of the president of the united states. tonight chuck schumer who is in line to replace harry reid gave this statement. this is a very serious issue that deserves careful consideration. i expect to have a classified briefing in the near future. i strongly believe congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement and support the corker bill. joining us, joshua green from bloomberg business week. josh barro, how does the schumer factor complicate things for the president? it s a negative event for the white house. but in order for congress to prevent the implementation of this bill there would have to be several steps. it would have to pass through
disapprove any agreement if they were going to stop it. so you could have a substantial number of democrats to line up in congress and say congress should have this power, then when faced with the actual terms of the agreement, they might not choose to exercise that option. corker says he believes this strengthens the president s hand. it allows the president to say, gee, i can t offer that up because my congress will not agree to it. i don t know if that s correct analysis of it but it does demonstrate the fact that mere passage of the corker deal does not mean the death of an iran deal. looking at chuck schumer s role in particular, since he is the leader in waiting now of the democrats in the senate very powerful position. he s in a very influential position with his caucus now. at that second stage, is it conceivable he might be one who votes for the corker bill but then votes in the end to support the president? i think that s a distinct
conceivable he might be one who votes for the corker bill but then votes in the end to support the president? i think that s a distinct possibility. i think what s going on here is that schumer to an extent is presenting his institutional prerogative. congress does not want to be shunted to the side. que in congress need to have a say on this, and we re not going to be ignored. and you saw obama allude to that saying there s got to be some way that congress should express themselves. i think the real tug-of-war is on what that will entail, will it be a show vote to say whether they re for or against or will it genuinely be something that threatens obama s policy, and i have a hard time believing that schumer is going to be the guy that wrecks one of obama s signature policy initiatives. and we re seeing the
moderates, and the republicans and the conservatives are split 50/50 on it. so even the republicans are not even close to the kind of real warmongering we re hearing from the leadership of their party in the congress. so i think i don t think it s fair to say they re warmongering. if you look at someone like lindsey graham he s said look we re going to let this process play out until june. i think somebody else may have got and better deal but there were avenues to be much more aggressive than the opposition has been by for instance pushing the corker bill and imposing sanctions now, and i don t think that s happened. i don t think it s fair to say this is a head long rush to war. i don t think this is a rush to war in that this is what they re claiming to choose. i m saying there is an objective reality that those who are against this bill are supporting the reality that the alternative is the possibility of war. that s what constrains