The U.S. Senate recently began debating bipartisan legislation that would allow Congress to approve or reject a final nuclear agreement with Iran. I continue to strongly believe that Congress must play a role throughout this process. Several weeks after the announcement of a “framework agreement” by the Obama administration, there is a growing concern about this deal and what it means for our nation. 

A month ago, congressional review of any agreement with Iran was portrayed as controversial or even unnecessary. Now, that idea has broad bipartisan support, something even the White House has been forced to accept. However, even as we consider legislation regarding this deal, troubling signs continue to emerge.

I am especially concerned about the administration’s increasing promotion of the idea that sanctions can be “snapped back” in the event that Iran violates an agreement. On April 11, President Obama asserted this point stating: “We are preserving the capacity to snap back sanctions in the event that they are breaking any deal.” But only a week later President Obama played down the question of whether Iran would receive immediate sanctions relief, and insisting the “snap back” provisions were the more important focus. I agree with President Obama’s goal. Who wouldn’t want harsh measures reinstated the moment Iran fails to comply with the agreement? The problem, however, is that the reality is far more complicated than the simple phrase – “snap back” – suggests.

In a Washington Post column in March, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, along with former Deputy Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Olli Heinonen, and Middle East expert Dr. Ray Takeyh laid out the long and winding path that any action to reinstate sanctions on Iran would have to take.  Their conclusion? That it could take an entire year – or even longer – to simply confirm Iran has violated its obligations and navigate the bureaucratic process necessary to restore sanctions on Iran. 

The idea that we’ll be able to swiftly re-impose sanctions – and those sanctions would quickly force Iran to change its behavior – is simply implausible. The practical reality of this issue is much more complicated than the talking points suggest. This underscores why a good deal with Iran is necessary – and why a bad deal is so much worse than no deal at all.

It took many years to build the global sanctions regime that brought Iran to the negotiating table, and the fact is, it can be dismantled much faster than it can be rebuilt. We can’t afford to overlook any key provisions or pretend that the precise terms of this agreement are any less important.

Of all the tools we can use to influence Iran, sanctions relief is the most consequential. It should only be provided as part of a solution that is clearly in America’s interest. The security of our country, our families, and the threat of a nuclear-armed Middle East hang in the balance. There will be no simple “snap back” if this agreement doesn’t hold. We need to be honest with the American people and not rely on unrealistic notions to justify any deal with Iran.

Thank you for participating in the democratic process. I look forward to visiting with you again next week.