Congress Eyes New Iran Terror Sanctions After Failed Push on Nuclear Penalties

Global Security Newswire Staff
Global Security Newswire Staff
March 28, 2014, 10:04 a.m.

A stalled U.S. push to ad­vance new nuc­le­ar sanc­tions against Ir­an has law­makers mulling how to hit it with ter­ror­ism-re­lated pen­al­ties in­stead, al-Mon­it­or re­ports.

A pro­pos­al to fur­ther ex­act a cost on Ir­an for sup­port­ing Hezbol­lah has been un­der con­sid­er­a­tion at the House For­eign Af­fairs Com­mit­tee for months, the pub­lic­a­tion said in a Thursday art­icle. However, the ini­ti­at­ive re­portedly gained new mo­mentum after Demo­crat­ic law­makers stopped push­ing to ad­vance sep­ar­ate le­gis­la­tion that would threaten new nuc­le­ar sanc­tions against the Middle East­ern na­tion.

The United States and five oth­er coun­tries agreed not to im­pose fresh atom­ic pen­al­ties against Ir­an for the dur­a­tion of a six-month atom­ic deal that took ef­fect in Janu­ary. Any new nuc­le­ar sanc­tions, ac­cord­ing to Tehran, would prompt it to with­draw from an on­go­ing dia­logue over con­cerns about its nuc­le­ar pro­gram.

Ir­an ex­ten­ded that warn­ing to cov­er any sanc­tions that would be triggered if Tehran does not agree to spe­cif­ic terms in a po­ten­tial fi­nal nuc­le­ar ac­cord. The Per­sian Gulf power in­sists its atom­ic am­bi­tions are purely peace­ful, but has voiced open­ness to po­ten­tially ac­cept­ing long-term re­stric­tions on the ef­forts in re­turn for sanc­tions re­lief from the five per­man­ent U.N. Se­cur­ity Coun­cil mem­ber na­tions and Ger­many.

Pres­id­ent Obama pre­vi­ously is­sued a veto threat for the Nuc­le­ar Weapon Free Ir­an Act, one bill con­tain­ing Ir­an pen­al­ties. Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id (D-Nev.) sub­sequently blocked floor con­sid­er­a­tion of the pro­pos­al, which has 59 co-spon­sors.

Ac­cord­ing to one House staffer, Obama of­fi­cials “can’t say to Con­gress that we’re go­ing to blow up the nuc­le­ar ne­go­ti­ations by passing fur­ther au­thor­iz­a­tions for Hezbol­lah sanc­tions.”

Former U.S. Treas­ury De­part­ment Mat­thew Levitt, though, sug­ges­ted that a num­ber of Obama in­siders “would prob­ably not want to see it right now if it has any­thing to do with Ir­an at all.”

What We're Following See More »
LOTS OF STRINGERS
Inside the AP’s Election Operation
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
THE QUESTION
What’s the Average Household Income of a Trump Voter?
2 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Seventy-two thousand dollars, according to FiveThirtyEight. That's higher than the national average, as well as the average Clinton or Sanders voter, but lower than the average Kasich voter.

Source:
VERY FEW DEMS NOW REPRESENT MINING COMMUNITIES
How Coal Country Went from Blue to Red
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
STAFF PICKS
History Already Being Less Kind to Hastert’s Leadership
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."

Source:
‘STARTING FROM ZERO’
Trump Ill Prepared for General Election
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."

Source:
×