SEN. BOB MENENDEZ (D-NJ): “My proposal for a better Iran deal.”  Writing in today’s New York Post, Menendez–a vocal critic of the Iran deal and consequently a thorn in the side of the Obama Administration–lays out his case:

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly said that the choice is between this Iran nuclear agreement and war. I reject that proposition.

If the P5+1 had not achieved an agreement, would we be at war with Iran? I don’t believe that. For all those who have said they have not heard — from anyone who opposes the agreement — a better solution, they’re wrong. . . .

And I believe we could still get a better deal and here’s how: We can disapprove this agreement, without rejecting the entire agreement.

We should direct the administration to re-negotiate by authorizing the continuation of negotiations and the Joint Plan of Action — including Iran’s $700 million-a-month lifeline, which to date have accrued to Iran’s benefit to the tune of $10 billion, and pausing further reductions of purchases of Iranian oil and other sanctions pursuant to the original JPOA. . . .

A continuation of talks would allow the re-consideration of just a few, but a critical few issues, including:

First, immediate ratification by Iran of the Additional Protocol to ensure we have a permanent international arrangement with Iran for access to suspect sites.

Second, a ban on centrifuge R&D for the duration of the agreement to ensure that Iran won’t have the capacity to quickly break out, just as the UN Security Council Resolution and sanctions snapback is off the table.

Third, close the Fordow enrichment facility. . . .

Fourth, the full resolution of the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s program. We need an arrangement that isn’t set up to whitewash this issue. . . .

Fifth, extend the duration of the agreement. One of the single most concerning elements of the deal is its 10-15 year sunset of restrictions on Iran’s program, with off-ramps starting after year eight. . . .

And sixth, we need agreement now about what penalties will be collectively imposed by the P5+1 for Iranian violations, both small and midsized, as well as a clear statement as to the so-called grandfather clause in paragraph 37 of the JCPOA, to ensure that the US position about not shielding contracts entered into legally upon re-imposition of sanctions is shared by our allies.

At the same time we should: Extend the authorization of the Iran Sanctions Act, which expires in 2016, to ensure that we have an effective snapback option; consider licensing the strategic export of American oil to allied countries struggling with supply because Iranian oil remains off the market; immediately implement the security measures offered to our partners in the Gulf Summit at Camp David, while preserving Israel’s qualitative military edge. . . .

Yep. Menendez is only the second Senator from the Democratic Party to announce opposition to the Iran deal (the other being Charles Schumer (D-NY)). The Washington Post reports that “[s]o far, 23 of the 34 senators needed in the Senate to block an override of an Obama veto have announced their support for the deal.”  The House may have the necessary two-thirds’ opposition to reject the Iran deal, with a vote on a disapproval resolution expected in September.