The clown show that was the Senate Iran hearing, in one tweet

Top administration officials are at Congress today for a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Iran nuclear deal, a subject that has always brought out the crazy in American politicians.

No one expected this hearing to be anything other than a circus: The deal is politically contentious, and Republicans are trying to out-hawk one another for the coming presidential primaries. Congress did not disappoint. This tweet, from New York Times economics policy reporter Jonathan Weisman, captures the scene pretty nicely:

Now Sen. Ron Johnson is lecturing MIT physicist Ernest Moniz on electro-magnetic pulse weapons.

— Jonathan Weisman (@jonathanweisman) July 23, 2015

A bit of context: Johnson is the senior senator from Wisconsin and a Republican. Ernest Moniz is the secretary of energy and one of the lead US negotiators on the Iran deal. Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons are a nonsense science fiction "threat" and a longtime point of obsession among certain conservatives, such as Newt Gingrich and Ron Johnson. Johnson's line of questioning, to a top-of-his-field nuclear physicist, is a little like asking Neil Armstrong if he thinks the moon landing might have been faked.

Moniz, as is the obligation of administration officials at congressional hearings, did his best to entertain the senator's message:

Energy Secretary Moniz told Sen.Johnson he was not familiar with the EMP commission's findings. Johnson said he'd forward him some stuff

— Laura Rozen (@lrozen) July 23, 2015

There were, naturally, other clown show moments. GOP Sen. Jim Risch said anyone who supports the nuclear deal "really joins the ranks of the most naive people on the face of the earth."

Risch added that Moniz and Secretary of State John Kerry had been "bamboozled" by Iran, but did not clarify whether they had also been run amok, led astray, or hoodwinked.

Sometimes congressional hearings can be productive. But almost always they will include a not-insignificant amount of circus time, particularly if it's on a politically loaded issue or if it's getting lots of TV coverage. This hearing is so far no exception.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via