Menendez Demands to Know ‘Endgame’ for Future Iran Deals

Next, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) provided keynote remarks. 
National Journal
Sara Sorcher
Dec. 12, 2013, 9:29 a.m.

Sen. Robert Men­en­dez isn’t go­ing to let the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion for­get that Con­gress knows bet­ter when it comes to pres­sur­ing Ir­an. Now, the New Jer­sey Demo­crat wants more than just new sanc­tions the ad­min­is­tra­tion is warn­ing against — he wants a res­ol­u­tion to define the “en­dgame” for any fu­ture deal with Ir­an.

Men­en­dez has proven him­self an Ir­an hawk, ready to buck his own party in the White House. Con­gress has proven be­fore — and could again — that mem­bers are a for­mid­able force on this is­sue.

Flash back to Decem­ber 2011, when Un­der­sec­ret­ary of State for Polit­ic­al Af­fairs Wendy Sher­man and Treas­ury Un­der­sec­ret­ary for Ter­ror­ism and Fin­an­cial In­tel­li­gence Dav­id Co­hen were seated — as they were again Thursday — be­fore a Sen­ate pan­el ar­guing against more sanc­tions on Ir­an. At the time, they ar­gued, mem­bers’ pro­posed sanc­tions tar­get­ing for­eign fin­an­cial in­sti­tu­tions that do busi­ness with the Cent­ral Bank of Ir­an would have un­in­ten­ded ef­fects. They would splinter the glob­al al­li­ance work­ing to pres­sure Tehran and boost oil prices — which would give Ir­an more money to fund its nuc­le­ar am­bi­tions.

But the Sen­ate did not listen. The sanc­tions passed un­an­im­ously as an amend­ment to the fisc­al 2012 de­fense policy bill days later.

“That amend­ment went on to pass 100 to zero, and it is one of the things the ad­min­is­tra­tion her­alds today as the es­sence of what has got­ten Ir­an to the ne­go­ti­at­ing table,” said Men­en­dez, now chair­man of the For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee, at a Sen­ate Bank­ing Com­mit­tee hear­ing Thursday. “I just want to put on the re­cord my skep­ti­cism” — about the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s op­pos­i­tion to new meas­ures now as world powers ne­go­ti­ate with Ir­an — “based on the his­tory we’ve had.”

Men­en­dez has been in fa­vor of pro­spect­ive sanc­tions that could be im­posed after the six-month win­dow of the in­ter­im deal between world powers and Ir­an ex­pires or founders. He’s now call­ing for more. “I’m be­gin­ning to think that maybe what the Sen­ate needs to do is define the en­dgame and at least what it finds as ac­cept­able as the fi­nal status,” Men­en­dez said.

He would have help from the House, where Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Eric Can­tor, R-Va., and Minor­ity Whip Steny Hoy­er, D-Md., are try­ing to sim­il­arly out­line what should be in a fi­nal agree­ment with Ir­an through a res­ol­u­tion.

Mem­bers are deeply sus­pi­cious about the cur­rent deal on the table, which stip­u­lates Ir­an will elim­in­ate its most dan­ger­ous stock­pile of urani­um en­riched at 20 per­cent and halt en­rich­ment of stocks above 5 per­cent but does not pre­clude Ir­an from keep­ing some en­rich­ment cap­ab­il­ity. They are wor­ried the in­ter­im deal would give Ir­an an eco­nom­ic life­line just as it’s be­gin­ning to com­prom­ise.

At the Bank­ing Com­mit­tee hear­ing, Co­hen de­fen­ded the in­ter­im deal, in­sist­ing that the up to $7 bil­lion in sanc­tions re­lief will not ma­ter­i­ally im­prove the con­di­tion of the Ir­a­ni­an eco­nomy. “At the end of the six-month peri­od, we ex­pect that Ir­an will be even deep­er in the hole eco­nom­ic­ally than it is today,” he said. Ir­an’s eco­nom­ic woes — in­clud­ing the fact that oil ex­ports sig­ni­fic­antly de­creased, and its whole eco­nomy con­trac­ted by more than 5 per­cent un­der the crush of sanc­tions — “dwarf” the lim­ited re­lief offered to Ir­an in the deal, he said. And Co­hen stressed that sanc­tions would con­tin­ue to be en­forced: Just hours be­fore the hear­ing, Treas­ury des­ig­nated a slew of com­pan­ies and in­di­vidu­als as vi­ol­at­ors of in­ter­na­tion­al sanc­tions against Ir­an for provid­ing sup­port to its nuc­le­ar pro­gram.

What’s more, Sher­man prom­ised the sanc­tions re­lief would not come in a lump sum. Even the $4.2 bil­lion in re­stric­ted as­sets would come in monthly al­loc­a­tions to keep up with veri­fied Ir­a­ni­an pro­gress on its nuc­le­ar com­mit­ments.

And there are some signs that the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s charm of­fens­ive to con­vince skep­tic­al mem­bers of Con­gress to hold off on new sanc­tions is work­ing.

The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion ap­peared to win a key sup­port­er in Bank­ing Com­mit­tee Chair­man Tim John­son, D-S.D., who, des­pite hav­ing ne­go­ti­ated a sanc­tions bill with his rank­ing mem­ber, Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, is will­ing to hold off — for now. “I agree the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s re­quest for a dip­lo­mat­ic pause is reas­on­able,” John­son said. Con­gress must be will­ing to provide the ad­min­is­tra­tion time, he said, since “a new round of U.S. sanc­tions now could rup­ture the unity of the in­ter­na­tion­al co­ali­tion against Ir­an’s nuc­le­ar pro­gram.” His sanc­tions bill, however, could be “fi­nal­ized and moved quickly” if Ir­an fails to com­ply with the agree­ment or ne­go­ti­ations col­lapse.

Crapo, too, said the U.S. should vig­or­ously en­force the core of ex­ist­ing sanc­tions and “de­vel­op a plan of ac­tion in the event that ne­go­ti­ations do not pro­duce the res­ults that dip­lo­mats want.”

Sher­man and Co­hen were clear that they did not want the U.S. to be seen as re­spons­ible for des­troy­ing ne­go­ti­ations. But Ir­an’s own ac­tions — in­clud­ing its plans to launch a rock­et next week, which Men­en­dez called a cov­er for a mil­it­ary bal­list­ic-weapons pro­gram — are “pro­voc­at­ive” and “a sign of bad faith,” he said.

For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee rank­ing mem­ber Bob Cork­er, R-Tenn., de­cried how com­pan­ies would soon seek to do busi­ness with Ir­an, and the rogue state could be con­sidered part of the in­ter­na­tion­al com­munity for keep­ing its bar­gain with world powers.

“It’s an out­stand­ing agree­ment for them, be­cause in six months they’re go­ing to be a nor­mal in­ter­na­tion­al en­tity,” Cork­er said. “I don’t see any way you hold the sanc­tions, but, again, ob­vi­ously, we’re dis­ap­poin­ted but hope­ful that some­how you can put the genie back in the bottle and end up with some type of agree­ment that averts war­fare.”

But even Cork­er ad­mit­ted that with a full dock­et in the Sen­ate, and strong op­pos­i­tion from the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, mem­bers may not ac­tu­ally take the step to go through with threats to im­pose sanc­tions.

“I real­ize,” Cork­er said, “we’re sort of go­ing to a rope-a-dope here in the Sen­ate, and that we’re not ac­tu­ally go­ing to do any­thing.”

What We're Following See More »
“MUST NEVER BE PRESIDENT”
Elizabeth Warren Goes After Donald Trump
31 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

In a stark contrast from Michelle Obama's uplifting speech, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke about the rigged system plaguing Americans before launching into a full-throated rebuke of GOP nominee Donald Trump. Trump is "a man who has never sacrificed anything for anyone," she claimed, before saying he "must never be president of the United States." She called him divisive and selfish, and said the American people won't accept his "hate-filled America." In addition to Trump, Warren went after the Republican Party as a whole. "To Republicans in Congress who said no, this November the American people are coming for you," she said.

FLOTUS OFFERS STRONG ENDORSEMENT OF CLINTON
Michelle Obama: “I Trust” Hillary Clinton
51 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

"In this election, and every election, it's about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of their lives," Michelle Obama said. "There is only one person who I trust with that responsibility … and that is our friend Hillary Clinton." In a personal and emotional speech, Michelle Obama spoke about the effect that angry oppositional rhetoric had on her children and how she chose to raise them. "When they go low, we go high," Obama said she told her children about dealing with bullies. Obama stayed mostly positive, but still offered a firm rebuke of Donald Trump, despite never once uttering his name. "The issues a president faces cannot be boiled down to 140 characters," she said.

SANDERS BACKER CONFRONTS STUBBORN SANDERS SUPPORTERS
Sarah Silverman to Bernie or Bust: “You’re Being Ridiculous”
1 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Many Bernie Sanders delegates have spent much of the first day of the Democratic National Convention resisting unity, booing at mentions of Hillary Clinton and often chanting "Bernie! Bernie!" Well, one of the most outspoken Bernie Sanders supporters just told them to take a seat. "To the Bernie-or-bust people: You're being ridiculous," said comedian Sarah Silverman in a brief appearance at the Convention, minutes after saying that she would proudly support Hillary Clinton for president.

‘INEXCUSABLE REMARKS’
DNC Formally Apologizes to Bernie Sanders
6 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Democratic National Committee issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders today, after leaked emails showed staffers trying to sabotage his presidential bid. "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," DNC officials said in the statement. "These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process. The DNC does not—and will not—tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates."

Source:
STILL A ‘SAFE SEAT’
DCCC Won’t Aid Wasserman Schultz
6 hours ago
THE LATEST

The chairman of the DCCC said Debbie Wasserman Schultz won't be getting financial help from the organization this year, even as she faces a well-funded primary challenger. "Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) said the committee’s resources will be spent helping Democrats in tough races rather than those in seats that are strongholds for the party." Executive Director Kelly Ward added, “We never spend money in safe seats."

Source:
×