Global warming, gun control, abortion rights, foreign intervention, support for Israel, regulations on business, income tax, estate tax, sales tax, unemployment, Social Security, the Affordable Care Act, gay marriage, and police restrictions, national surveillance, state’s power, federal power, appointees, and immigration.

I set the timer for two minutes and put down everything I could think of that will divide Republicans and Democrats along party lines. The point I’m trying to make is that there is plenty, arguably too much, that is debated between the two parties. Yet, somehow, in the chaos and havoc of all of this bickering, a single point of discussion has been agreed upon. What beauty and grandeur and delight this one point must have to gracefully dance between aisles and gather most congressmen, of both red and blue, into a loving circle of agreement and support. Well, for the men and women of Congress, this proposal sounds pretty good.

Bill S. 615, or the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, grants Congress the right to review and ultimately approve a final negotiated agreement regarding the Iranian nuclear talks. The bill that received unanimous support (19-0 vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) essentially: makes the Obama administration release to Congress all the details regarding the deal struck; gives Congress 30 days to approve or disapprove the bill; assigns responsibility to the White House for providing a report to Congress regarding Iran’s compliance every three months; and, most importantly, it gives Congress a seat at the negotiating table.

That privilege, one previously saved exclusively for the executive branch, has been bestowed upon the colossal, 535-person apparatus that is Congress. And it couldn’t have come at a more high-stress time for the administration. Yes, the branch that is known for its dragging pace and conflicting opinions is now in a position to either support or dismantle the fragile deal with the overtly-hostile nation.

To be fair, the bill isn’t a death sentence to the administration by any means. It operates with a negating mechanism that allows a simple majority to draft a resolution that expresses their opposition to the agreement, but such a measure can be vetoed by the President without any difficulty. If the agreement is to be killed before fruition, Congress will need a supermajority, or two-thirds vote, from both houses to override the veto enacted by the President. This, within the span of 30 days, is not necessarily impossible, but not necessarily plausible either. The Republicans would be more than happy to ax the agreement if they feel it goes too soft on the Iranians, though Democrats might be a tad more hesitant to defy their president and possibly deliver an embarrassing blow to their party before 2016.
So why exactly is the Corker Bill, (named after its sponsor, Republican Senator Bob Corker), getting so much support from both sides?

Well, getting strong-armed through health care reform, immigration reform, and the sanctioning of Iran has left Republicans sore and wary about the administration and their aptitude for getting their way. This measure doesn’t mean that all Republicans oppose cooling relations with Iran and adding more accountability to their use and supply of nuclear devices. Instead, it’s the manifestation of frustrations within the GOP and their helplessness the past six years. Now, with a red Congress, they are prepared to slow down and reduce the power and influence the White House has over the legislative branch. For further evidence of this trend, look to the delay of Loretta Lynch’s appointment as Attorney General or the bill regarding trade that the president is trying to get through Congress currently.

Democrats, on the other hand, are setting up the standard to vote on decisions concerning foreign affairs by empowering Congress through this bill. If a Republican wins the Oval Office in 2016, this new measure of roping in power will be important in creating the appearance of inability and weakness in the president, thus helping the Democrats’ chances of winning back their Congress, and even their presidency. If a Democrat wins next year, there certainly will not be bipartisan support for this sort of behavior.

If one thing can get across with this article, it’s that peace in the Capitol is always temporary and never without behind-the-scenes reasons. There is an ulterior motive to everything we do, so don’t fall for blanket statements promising ideas too good to be true.