The Post explains why one of the House’s feeble protests on the nuclear deal last week was so pointless:

So, too, was the diversion by the Republican-led House into a far-fetched attempt to derail the accord with a claim that President Obama failed to meet a legal requirement that all of its details, including separate technical arrangements between Iran and United Nations inspectors, be disclosed. At best, the argument is a distraction: Congress cannot demand that the International Atomic Energy Agency alter its protocols to suit U.S. lawmakers [bold mine-DL].

Insisting that the IAEA violate the confidentiality of agreements that it makes with one government to satisfy legislators from another state would make it much more difficult in the future for the agency to be able to negotiate successfully with any government. If governments can’t trust the IAEA to keep the arrangements they work out confidential, they might refuse to negotiate all together or could become much less cooperative. Opponents of the deal imagine that they have caught the administration on a technicality, but they haven’t. They have just discovered the latest excuse for their predetermined opposition to the deal. It’s too bad that every member in the House majority bought into this bogus argument, since that gave them a (very weak) excuse to avoid judging the deal on its merits.

If deal opponents believe they have found a winning legal argument against the deal, they are going to be just as sorely disappointed as they have been with every other attempt at sabotaging the agreement. One reason why the nuclear deal’s would-be saboteurs keep failing is that their arguments against the deal are almost always unfounded or made in bad faith. Their certainty that they can wreck the deal by indulging the most hard-line positions keeps backfiring on them and helping to rally support behind the deal that might not have been there otherwise.