Iran-Santions Bill Puts GOP Senators in Awkward Stance

Stacy Kaper, National Journal
See more stories about...
Stacy Kaper, National Journal
Dec. 19, 2013, 11:02 a.m.

The Nuc­le­ar Weapons Free Ir­an Act, just filed in the U.S. Sen­ate, puts cham­ber GOP mem­bers in an awk­ward po­s­i­tion.

The meas­ure would en­force the in­ter­im nuc­le­ar agree­ment an­nounced with Ir­an, mean­ing Re­pub­lic­ans are in es­sence giv­ing their bless­ing to the pre­lim­in­ary agree­ment — which they’ve heav­ily cri­ti­cized — by sanc­tion­ing it with the force of le­gis­la­tion.

The bill es­sen­tially co­di­fies the in­ter­im agree­ment an­nounced with Ir­an last month, at first giv­ing the pres­id­ent an ini­tial six months to ease eco­nom­ic sanc­tions while ne­go­ti­at­ing a com­pre­hens­ive deal, then al­low­ing the pres­id­ent ad­di­tion­al flex­ib­il­ity to have up to a year to ne­go­ti­ate with Ir­an while sanc­tions were eased.

A bi­par­tis­an group of 26 sen­at­ors un­veiled the Ir­an-sanc­tions le­gis­la­tion on Thursday, des­pite Pres­id­ent Obama re­peatedly ask­ing the Sen­ate to hold off fur­ther ac­tion while Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry ne­go­ti­ates with Tehran’s lead­er­ship.

The move is the latest sign of a grow­ing wedge between Sen­ate Demo­crats and the White House on Ir­an. The ad­min­is­tra­tion has said that even the in­tro­duc­tion of a sanc­tions bill threatens to un­der­mine the ne­go­ti­ations.

Un­der the le­gis­la­tion, if Ir­an failed to fol­low the in­ter­im agree­ment — which lays out re­stric­tions on urani­um en­rich­ment and cent­ri­fuge pro­duc­tion — sanc­tions would go back in­to ef­fect. Sanc­tions would also be re­applied if Ir­an ini­ti­ated an act of ag­gres­sion, such as com­mit­ting a ter­ror­ist at­tack against the U.S. And if Ir­an fails to reach a fi­nal deal, sanc­tions would also go back in­to af­fect.

By Thursday af­ter­noon the bill, led by Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee Chair­man Robert Men­en­dez (D-N.J.) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), had amassed more than a quarter of the cham­ber as spon­sors.

The bill would re­quire Ir­an to strictly ad­here to a pre­lim­in­ary agree­ment reached with the U.S. and oth­er world lead­ers in Novem­ber. The le­gis­la­tion re­quires fur­ther re­duc­tions in pur­chases of Ir­a­ni­an pet­ro­leum and ap­plies ad­di­tion­al pen­al­ties to stra­tegic ele­ments of the Ir­a­ni­an eco­nomy, to in­clude the en­gin­eer­ing, min­ing, and con­struc­tion sec­tors.

“Cur­rent sanc­tions brought Ir­an to the ne­go­ti­at­ing table and a cred­ible threat of fu­ture sanc­tions will re­quire Ir­an to co­oper­ate and act in good faith at the ne­go­ti­at­ing table,” Men­en­dez said in a press re­lease. “The Ir­a­ni­ans last week blamed the ad­min­is­tra­tion for en­for­cing sanc­tions; now, they cri­ti­cize Con­gress. The bur­den rests with Ir­an to ne­go­ti­ate in good faith and veri­fi­ably ter­min­ate its nuc­le­ar-weapons pro­gram. Pro­spect­ive sanc­tions will in­flu­ence Ir­an’s cal­cu­lus and ac­cel­er­ate that pro­cess to­ward achiev­ing a mean­ing­ful dip­lo­mat­ic res­ol­u­tion.”

Kirk ad­ded, “The Amer­ic­an people right­fully dis­trust Ir­an’s true in­ten­tions and they de­serve an in­sur­ance policy to de­fend against Ir­a­ni­an de­cep­tion dur­ing ne­go­ti­ations. … This is a re­spons­ible, bi­par­tis­an bill to pro­tect the Amer­ic­an people from Ir­a­ni­an de­cep­tion and I urge the ma­jor­ity lead­er to give the Amer­ic­an people an up or down vote.”

The le­gis­la­tion is co­sponsored by Charles Schu­mer (D-N.Y.), Lind­sey Gra­ham (R-S.C.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), John Mc­Cain (R-Ar­iz.), Robert Ca­sey (D-Pa.), Marco Ru­bio (R-Fla.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Richard Blu­menth­al (D-Conn.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Mark Be­gich (D-Alaska), Bob Cork­er (R-Tenn.), Mark Pry­or (D-Ark.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Jerry Mor­an (R-Kan.), Kirsten Gil­librand (D-N.Y.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Mike Jo­hanns (R-Neb.), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Joe Don­nelly (D-Ind.), and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).

This art­icle was pub­lished in Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire, which is pro­duced in­de­pend­ently by Na­tion­al Journ­al Group un­der con­tract with the Nuc­le­ar Threat Ini­ti­at­ive. NTI is a non­profit, non­par­tis­an group work­ing to re­duce glob­al threats from nuc­le­ar, bio­lo­gic­al, and chem­ic­al weapons.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
23 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×