[stylin19a]

Hope this makes sense

This should have been presented as a treaty. Treaties are considered blocked until ratified.
The Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification of Treaties.
As a treaty, this was never going to get 2/3rds of the vote.

There was no "Iran deal" without Corker's maneuver. I have no idea why he did this.
The Corker scheme allowed Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015,(not treaty) to be presented as a regular bill.

Congress (Senate & House) voted for Corker's Iran Review act.
It only required a simple majority to pass.
It went to the house and they approved it. The senate made amendments, approved by the house, then they voted on the house bill.
Sessions voted for this, as did everyone but Boxer(absent) & Cotton.

What this did, was force any future vote on the Iran Agreement, to go thru cloture in the senate (which happened in sept 2015 a couple of times and failed - it did give Senators political cover as they could say they voted against it) and pass the house.
If it had passed Congress, Obama would have vetoed it and Congress would had to override the veto with 2/3rds.
The votes weren't there for that, so there was no way this Iran deal was going to be sabotaged.

If Corker's maneuver fails, there is no Iran deal. The alternative would have been to represent it as a treaty.

[little jeremiah]

Thanks for all the details, I do appreciate it.

[Disestablishmentarian]

There was no "Iran deal" without Corker's maneuver. I have no idea why he did this.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

He did it for the same reason Hussein and Kerry and HRC did it: They were bribed ... large chunks of that U.S. taxpayer cash.

I cannot prove this, but I've been around a long time and know a crooked deal when I see it.

People have NO IDEA how much bribery is in our federal government.