On Iran, Menendez Offers Obama an Olive Branch—and a Warning

Key Democrats say they will give the administration more time to negotiate. But their patience is limited.

National Journal
Sarah Mimms
Add to Briefcase
Sarah Mimms
Jan. 27, 2015, 7:17 a.m.

A week ago, Sen. Robert Men­en­dez com­pared the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s talk­ing points on Ir­an to those com­ing “straight out of Tehran.” On Tues­day, he sent an olive branch to the White House, agree­ing in a let­ter to post­pone fur­ther sanc­tions over the coun­try’s nuc­le­ar pro­gram un­til late March.

The dra­mat­ic re­versal by the top Demo­crat on the Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee was both a ma­jor con­ces­sion to the White House, which has threatened to veto the sanc­tions bill — buy­ing the ad­min­is­tra­tion more time to pur­sue ne­go­ti­ations with Tehran — and a warn­ing. The real mes­sage of the let­ter from Men­en­dez was not just in its con­tent, but in the 10 sig­na­tures at the bot­tom of the page.

Those sig­nat­or­ies — all fel­low Demo­crats — rep­res­ent ex­tra votes to pass the sanc­tions bill this spring and nearly enough ayes, com­bined with all of the cham­ber’s Re­pub­lic­ans, to over­ride a pres­id­en­tial veto, should a show­down come. Men­en­dez told re­port­ers Tues­day that in ad­di­tion to those 10 Demo­crats, there were “oth­ers who ex­pressed their strong in­terest” in the is­sue.

Even as they offered the ad­min­is­tra­tion more time for ne­go­ti­ations, pro-sanc­tions Demo­crats made a show of force. Im­pli­cit in the let­ter is that they will move for­ward when, as they ex­pect, the ne­go­ti­ations fail and it’s un­likely that Pres­id­ent Obama will be able to do any­thing about it. The mes­sage: Try us.

The let­ter, which Men­en­dez made pub­lic dur­ing a hear­ing of the Sen­ate Bank­ing Com­mit­tee on Tues­day, is just the latest epis­ode in an on­go­ing game of chick­en between the White House and the New Jer­sey Demo­crat, whose com­mit­tee role should make him the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s de facto top ally on for­eign af­fairs in Con­gress, over Ir­an.

Dur­ing a ques­tion-and-an­swer ses­sion at the Sen­ate Demo­crat­ic re­treat in Bal­timore two weeks ago, Men­en­dez and Obama got in­to a tense verbal al­ter­ca­tion over the sanc­tions le­gis­la­tion. Dur­ing the ex­change, Obama urged sen­at­ors to drop their push for sanc­tions, warn­ing that if they scuttled ne­go­ti­ations with Ir­an, the U.S. would be blamed.

Des­pite those warn­ings, Men­en­dez said dur­ing Tues­day’s Bank­ing Com­mit­tee hear­ing that “un­til now, Ir­an has not been mo­tiv­ated” to come to a deal with the United States and oth­er in­ter­na­tion­al ne­go­ti­at­ors over its nuc­le­ar pro­gram. “In my view,” he said, “a strong bi­par­tis­an bill that out­lines the con­sequences of fail­ure could be the mo­tiv­at­or that Ir­a­ni­an lead­ers need to make the hard de­cisions.”

Men­en­dez said he had not been lob­bied by the White House to delay the sanc­tions bill, which he coau­thored with Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, since his con­front­a­tion with the pres­id­ent in Bal­timore. “I don’t get calls [from the White House on Ir­an],” he said while get­ting in­to an el­ev­at­or on Tues­day.

But Men­en­dez said in a sub­sequent in­ter­view that he felt the White House had “made a very open, pub­lic case” for delay­ing the sanc­tions bill un­til after the March 24 dead­line for ne­go­ti­at­ors to come up with a frame­work for a deal with Ir­an, one that he ul­ti­mately found com­pel­ling. Ad­di­tion­ally, the delay would en­sure that there will not be “any ex­cuses for an agree­ment not be­ing made,” he said.

“And if they can’t, then [the let­ter] made it very clear to the ad­min­is­tra­tion that it is our in­ten­tion to move for­ward at that time,” he told re­port­ers.

“It strikes me that this is a pretty good day for those who sup­port the [sanc­tions bill],” Josh Block, the CEO and pres­id­ent of The Is­rael Pro­ject, said in an in­ter­view. The let­ter is a “cre­at­ive way” to sig­nal to the White House that sup­port for sanc­tions goes bey­ond the Re­pub­lic­an con­fer­ence and is gain­ing trac­tion among con­gres­sion­al Demo­crats.

Those lis­ted in sup­port range from Men­en­dez to Blue-Dog Sen. Joe Manchin and the Sen­ate’s No. 3 Demo­crat, Chuck Schu­mer. The oth­er sig­nat­or­ies are Richard Blu­menth­al of Con­necti­c­ut, Ben Cardin of Mary­land, Robert Ca­sey of Pennsylvania, Chris­toph­er Coons of Delaware, Joe Don­nelly of In­di­ana, and both Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

Men­en­dez’s con­ces­sion to the White House on the sanc­tions timeline comes just a week after House Speak­er John Boehner in­vited Is­raeli Prime Min­is­ter Ben­jamin Net­an­yahu to speak be­fore a joint ses­sion of Con­gress without con­sult­ing with the ad­min­is­tra­tion. A Men­en­dez aide said that his de­cision to delay the timeline for the sanc­tions bill had noth­ing to do with Net­an­yahu’s vis­it.

But the move, an­nounced just a day after Obama vowed in his State of the Uni­on Ad­dress to veto any new Ir­an sanc­tions le­gis­la­tion, in­furi­ated the White House and many con­gres­sion­al Demo­crats, some of whom told The At­lantic‘s Jef­frey Gold­berg that they felt hu­mi­li­ated and angered by Net­an­yahu’s ploy to ad­dress Con­gress “be­hind the pres­id­ent’s back.”

Des­pite pub­lic fights over Cuba and Ir­an policy, Men­en­dez de­scribed his re­la­tion­ship with the White House as “ex­cel­lent” on Tues­day.

“Look, you know my friends in the press like to fo­cus on dis­agree­ments, but if you were to look at the over­whelm­ing uni­verse of votes and sup­port for pres­id­en­tial policies, you would find over­whelm­ingly that I sup­port the pres­id­ent,” Men­en­dez said in an in­ter­view last week. “Where I have a policy dis­agree­ment, I will stand on my views.”¦ That’s the way it’s al­ways been for me.”

James Oliphant contributed to this article.
What We're Following See More »
INDICTMENTS NOT PROOF OF COLLUSION
Rosenstein Holds Presser On Russian Indictments
1 days ago
THE DETAILS
Source:
CONTRADICTS TRUMP’S DENIALS
U.S. Indicts 13 Russian Nationals For Election Interference
1 days ago
THE LATEST

The indictment, filed in the District of Columbia, alleges that the interference began "in or around 2014," when the defendants began tracking and studying U.S. social media sites. They "created and controlled numerous Twitter accounts" and "purchased computer servers located inside the United States" to mask their identities, some of which were stolen. The interference was coordinated by election interference "specialists," and focused on the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, and other divisive issues. "By early to mid-2016" the groups began supporting the campaign of "then-candidate Donald Trump," including by communicating with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign..."

Source:
“QUEEN FOR A DAY”
Gates Said to Be Finalizing a Plea Deal
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case. Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a 'Queen for a Day' interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed."

Source:
ZERO-FOR-TWO
Another Defeat for Immigration Legislation in the Senate
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"The Senate on Thursday rejected immigration legislation crafted by centrists in both parties after President Trump threatened to veto the bill if it made it to his desk. In a 54-45 vote, the Senate failed to advance the legislation from eight Republican, seven Democratic and one Independent senators. It needed 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle. "

Source:
DISPUTE ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
House Intel Panel Could Charge Bannon with Contempt
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"The House Intelligence Committee has scheduled a Thursday meeting to hear testimony from Steve Bannon—but it's an open question whether President Donald Trump's former chief strategist will even show up. The White House sent a letter to Capitol Hill late Wednesday laying out its explanation for why Trump's transition period falls under its authority to assert executive privilege, a move intended to shield Bannon from answering questions about that time period." Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee dispute the White House's theory, and have floated charging Bannon with contempt should he refuse to appear.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login