Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H. Joint Res. 62

Authorizing Military Force if Iran Violates the Nuclear Deal

Argument in favor

Without the threat of military force, Iran is likely to skirt the agreements of the nuclear deal and secretly develop its nuclear capabilities. This doesn’t guarantee that force would even be used, it just establishes a process.

···
09/08/2015
“If Iran does not live up to the agreement, sanctions may be reapplied,” Sanders said. “If Iran moves toward a nuclear weapon, all available options remain on the table. I think it is incumbent upon us, however, to give the negotiated agreement a chance to succeed.” [washingtonpost.com]
Like (68)
Follow
Share
BarackObama's Opinion
···
09/08/2015
"Building a nuclear bomb requires either uranium or plutonium. But thanks to this deal, Iran’s four possible ways to leverage those fissile materials are blocked." [whitehouse.gov]
Like (45)
Follow
Share
···
09/08/2015
“Senator Warren believes we must exhaust every effort to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy, and she does not support imposing additional sanctions through new legislation while diplomatic efforts to achieve a long-term agreement are ongoing.” [washingtonpost.com]
Like (27)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

This resolution would give any President a green light to use military force against Iran without seeking approval from Congress. If the U.S. must use force against Iran, it should be debated and agreed upon at that time — not months or years in advance.

DonaldTrump's Opinion
···
09/08/2015
“The deal with Iran will go down as one of the most incompetent ever made. The U.S. lost on virtually every point. We just don't win anymore!” [twitter.com/realdonaldtrump]
Like (54)
Follow
Share
ScottWalker's Opinion
···
09/08/2015
“The deal [supported by this legislation,] and the secret side agreements that continue to emerge, jeopardize our safety and that of our closest allies.” Read more at https://www.scottwalker.com/news/gov-walker-statement-new-iran-deal-revelations
Like (12)
Follow
Share
Thomas's Opinion
···
09/05/2015
Let's talk first. Guns and blood should always be the last action after all other options have been explored.
Like (6)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H. Joint Res. 62?

This resolution would allow the President to use military force against Iran if the country seriously violates the nuclear deal, AKA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA). Military action would be used to eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities. This legislation would function the same way as an authorization of force under the War Powers Resolution.

If the President thinks that an Iranian violation of the JCPA seriously threatens U.S. national security, and decides to use military force, he or she must first notify and work with Congress to ensure that:

  • The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) agrees that Iran has failed to comply with its commitments and obligations under the JCPA;

  • The United Nations Security Council has re-imposed its sanctions against Iran because the country violated the agreement;

  • Congress has the plans (both scope and strategy) for using Armed Forces against Iran.

After this resolution’s enactment, the President would send a report to Congress (at least once every 60 days) detailing armed forces activities and redeployment plans. The authority granted by this legislation would end one year after its enactment — meaning that continued military operations against Iran would require a new authorization.

Impact

The U.S. Armed Forces, Iran, U.S. diplomatic relations with Iran and other countries in the JCPA, the IAEA, Congress, and the President.

Cost of House Bill H. Joint Res. 62

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: In the past, President Obama has noted that all options are on the table to keep Iran from creating a nuclear weapon — including an attack by the U.S. military. But in the lead up to the nuclear deal, the administration has softened its stance to emphasize that “military action would likely insure that Iran would break out and acquire nuclear weapons.”

Critics argue that by pre-authorizing force against Iran, Congress effectively gives the President the power to make the decision unilaterally.


Of Note: Congress has yet to vote on a resolution rejecting the Iran nuclear agreement, and it appears that even if the disapproval resolution succeeds that President Obama could sustain a veto.

Regardless of the political debate, the U.S. military has been preparing itself to deal with any scenario that may emerge, and it now has at its disposal bombs capable of reaching Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user AF GlobalStrike)

Official Title

To authorize the use of the Armed Forces of the United States against Iran if Iran commits a serious violation of its commitments or obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and for other purposes.

joint resolution Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on Foreign Affairs
    IntroducedJuly 29th, 2015
    “If Iran does not live up to the agreement, sanctions may be reapplied,” Sanders said. “If Iran moves toward a nuclear weapon, all available options remain on the table. I think it is incumbent upon us, however, to give the negotiated agreement a chance to succeed.” [washingtonpost.com]
    Like (68)
    Follow
    Share
    “The deal with Iran will go down as one of the most incompetent ever made. The U.S. lost on virtually every point. We just don't win anymore!” [twitter.com/realdonaldtrump]
    Like (54)
    Follow
    Share
    "Building a nuclear bomb requires either uranium or plutonium. But thanks to this deal, Iran’s four possible ways to leverage those fissile materials are blocked." [whitehouse.gov]
    Like (45)
    Follow
    Share
    “Senator Warren believes we must exhaust every effort to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy, and she does not support imposing additional sanctions through new legislation while diplomatic efforts to achieve a long-term agreement are ongoing.” [washingtonpost.com]
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    “The deal [supported by this legislation,] and the secret side agreements that continue to emerge, jeopardize our safety and that of our closest allies.” Read more at https://www.scottwalker.com/news/gov-walker-statement-new-iran-deal-revelations
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Contrary to what the opposing view of this bill said, congress is still required to pass a declaration of war. Iran is responsible for many U.S. Service members deaths. Congress's inability to stop this so called treaty is going to create many issues down the road so that being said I would like congress to have the ability to do what they need due to the ignorance of the president and his cabinet.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Let's talk first. Guns and blood should always be the last action after all other options have been explored.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    If Obama knew of any violations he would ignore it. It certainly would take the rest of his term to react, then in Jan 2017, as ex-president, he would criticize the new president for wagering war on a country he made peace with in 2015.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Give the U.S. Military a break people.. we don't need constant war, we do not need to make more of our citizens veterans. We do not need a repeat of the Iraq War
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Their nuclear / military sites should have already been destroyed over the past decade of thumbing their nose at the U.N.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    "The Iran Deal demonstrates the tradition of American leadership to make our country, and the world, a safer place."[twitter.com/VP]
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Why look for ANY reason to go to war? The Middle East has been a waste of taxpayer money for half a century. Why continue.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Why is war the answer to EVERYTHING!!!
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    The use of force is implicit in the deal as it stands. If George W. Bush taught us nothing else, it is that congress needs to have a say in whether or not we go to war & that members of congress need to be on record as being for or against. There also needs to be a check on presidential power if we misguidedly elect another neo-con. Even those of us who are for the deal are not naive enough to think enforcement is not essential. Nevertheless, it seems unwise to assume, before congress has even gotten around to taking a vote, that going to war is imminent. The point of diplomacy is, after all, to AVOID war. Just saying...
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Iran will inevitably violate this deal (they already have). We should already be destroying their missile silos and nuclear plants. They are given too much opportunity to increase military infrastructure and threaten the United States and our Allies
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Seems a little provocative at this time, especially if one would prefer further helpful negotiations.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    There needs to be real deterrents in place to keep Iran from breaking their agreement. Furthermore, we need something in place that has a quick effect in the case our government needs to act. Extra sanctions wouldn't have a quick effect, military presence would.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    If any treaty is broken, the country I violation deserves to be retaliated against.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    This should be passed so that Iran knows the consequences if they do break the nuclear deal. This is more of a "threat" to Iran to not break the deal, than wasting defense money on Iran.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Most of the folks that want to wage military strength against anyone have never been in the military.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE