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 »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
4 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
4 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
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×