John, you may be right about the untoward impacts on US energy security of the Iran agreement. But the predicate of your argument is a bit off the mark:
"Congress is reviewing the 2015 Iranian Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) negotiated by the Obama Administration."
The Non-Proliferation Treaty dates to 1968. There is no 2015 Iranian version. What you probably are referring to is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The latter is the outcome of the recent agreement negotiated between the so-called P5+1 nations and Iran. While the intent of the JCPOA may be to bolster Iran's compliance with the NPT (of which it is a signatory), the JCPOA is not a treaty. The distinction is significant because a treaty, to bind the United States, would have to be consented to by the US Senate. That requirement does not apply to the Iran 'deal' which is in the nature of an "executive agreement."
The president did agree to legislation passed in May that allows the Congress to review the deal and either approve or disapprove. The politics of the situation are more than a bit byzantine. But the president has the option to veto whatever the Congress passes, and few analysts think there are enough votes to overturn a veto. Technically, the law does not empower the Congress to approve or block the JCPOA per se (the White House would not agree to that) but rather the president's authority to lift sanctions on Iran.
But the sanctions are the crux of the matter. The JCPOA hinges on lifting sanctions in return for Iran complying with specific measures aimed at curtailing its ability to create nuclear weapons. To the extent Congress blocks lifting sanctions, or even creates new ones, that would impair or even void the JCPOA.
Exactly what the consequences would be in either case is, of course, a matter of considerable controversy.
But again, the JCPOA is not a new NPT. Actually, at least one analyst argues that ad hoc agreements like the JCPOA may reflect a weakening or a transformation of the NPT.