Iran-Sanctions Bill Offers Something for Everyone

Stacy Kaper, National Journal
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Stacy Kaper, National Journal
Dec. 20, 2013, 4:02 a.m.

Ini­tial ana­lyses of an Ir­an-sanc­tions bill in­tro­duced on Thursday by Sen­at­ors Robert Men­en­dez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) ran the gamut.

Views vary from see­ing the meas­ure as so ex­plos­ive that it threatens war with Ir­an — to so in­noc­u­ous it al­lows law­makers to achieve polit­ic­al ob­ject­ives without jeop­ard­iz­ing ne­go­ti­ations.

The bill, which would al­low the ad­min­is­tra­tion to have up to a year to ease sanc­tions while ne­go­ti­at­ing with Ir­an on a com­pre­hens­ive agree­ment to pre­vent it from achiev­ing nuc­le­ar-weapons cap­ab­il­it­ies, has an un­clear out­look in the Sen­ate.

On the pro side, Con­gress has routinely passed sanc­tions le­gis­la­tion with big bi­par­tis­an votes des­pite the ob­jec­tions of the ad­min­is­tra­tion. That’s on top of the fact that the Nuc­le­ar Weapon Free Ir­an Act was in­tro­duced with 26 spon­sors, split evenly between Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans, demon­strat­ing that a broad swath of the Sen­ate already backs the le­gis­la­tion.

On the flip side, the ad­min­is­tra­tion adam­antly op­poses le­gis­la­tion, which it ar­gues could des­troy dip­lo­mat­ic talks. Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id has so far shown little will­ing­ness to buck the ad­min­is­tra­tion on this pri­or­ity, and sev­er­al rel­ev­ant seni­or Demo­crats in the Sen­ate, like In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee Chair­wo­man Di­anne Fein­stein, Armed Ser­vices Chair­man Carl Lev­in, and Bank­ing Chair­man Tim John­son have ar­gued that Con­gress should wait and give the ad­min­is­tra­tion room to ne­go­ti­ate.

A group of 10 Demo­crat­ic com­mit­tee chairs, in­clud­ing John­son, Fein­stein, and Lev­in, sent a let­ter to Re­id this week ar­guing that “new sanc­tions would play in­to the hands of those in Ir­an who are most eager to see ne­go­ti­ations fail” and point­ing to an in­tel­li­gence-com­munity as­sess­ment that new sanc­tions would un­der­mine pro­spects for a suc­cess­ful com­pre­hens­ive agree­ment with Ir­an.

“Sen­at­or Re­id is go­ing to do what he can to pro­tect the ad­min­is­tra­tion,” said a former seni­or Demo­crat­ic lead­er­ship aide, who said not to ex­pect the bill to ad­vance “any­time soon.”

Law­makers push­ing the bill ar­gue that the num­ber of sup­port­ers is grow­ing and mo­mentum is on their side. To wit, 14 mem­bers is­sued a joint state­ment in sup­port of ad­di­tion­al sanc­tions last month.

Sen. John Mc­Cain (R-Ar­iz.) said he ex­pects the num­ber of sup­port­ers to grow, build­ing pres­sure on Re­id.

“It has sig­ni­fic­ant im­pact when you see that many bi­par­tis­an sup­port­ers; there is go­ing to be enorm­ous pres­sures on Sen­at­or Re­id to sched­ule a vote, and we are go­ing to keep push­ing him,” Mc­Cain said.

The bill ap­pears in­ten­ded to add the force of law to the in­ter­im agree­ment that the ad­min­is­tra­tion reached with Ir­an and the so-called P-5+1 na­tions — Rus­sia, China, the United King­dom, France, and Ger­many — last month. It gives the ad­min­is­tra­tion an ini­tial six months to ne­go­ti­ate, which can be ex­ten­ded for up to a year. The sanc­tions would kick in if Ir­an vi­ol­ated the agree­ment dur­ing that time or if a fi­nal agree­ment failed to res­ult in “the com­plete and veri­fi­able ter­min­a­tion of Ir­an’s il­li­cit nuc­le­ar weapons pro­gram.”

“Right now it’s very clear we are all in the corner of hop­ing we will get Ir­an to ne­go­ti­ate an agree­ment where they will dis­mantle their in­fra­struc­ture that al­lows a break­out for nuc­le­ar weapons. That’s our ob­ject­ive,” said Sen­at­or Ben Cardin (D-Md., who is co­spon­sor­ing the bill, in an in­ter­view.

“This le­gis­la­tion makes it clear — I think it’s very sim­il­ar to what the pres­id­ent said — that if Ir­an does not com­ply with the agree­ment, that not only will the sanc­tions be re­im­posed that are be­ing eased, but they can ex­pect to be fur­ther isol­ated.”

The bill ap­pears to of­fer a broad cross-sec­tion of law­makers with ways to ad­vance dif­fer­ing polit­ic­al aims.

Mem­bers who want to stick it to the ad­min­is­tra­tion can claim they did so, while oth­ers can ar­gue they are simply lay­ing out the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s terms for an agree­ment and sup­port­ing its dip­lo­mat­ic ef­forts.

Cardin said his goal was to en­sure that the ne­go­ti­ations with Ir­an lead to dis­mant­ling its nuc­le­ar-weapons cap­ab­il­it­ies.

Sen­at­or Bob Cork­er (R-Tenn.) said the bill is im­port­ant be­cause it lays out what Con­gress wants to see in a fi­nal agree­ment with Ir­an, with one united voice.

Oth­er Re­pub­lic­ans like Kirk, Mc­Cain, and Marco Ru­bio of Flor­ida said they were fo­cused on see­ing the bill pass, with Kirk de­clar­ing it a form of “in­sur­ance policy” against Ir­an.

Even sen­at­ors sup­port­ing sanc­tions le­gis­la­tion who have not signed on as co­spon­sors said they ex­pect it to send a strong mes­sage to the Ir­a­ni­ans.

“I hope it has a huge im­pact, be­cause I hope we are able to pass it and we are able to put some sig­ni­fic­ant sanc­tions on and let the Ir­a­ni­ans know that Con­gress means busi­ness,” said Sen­aat­or Saxby Cham­b­liss (R-Ga.), who is not an ori­gin­al co­spon­sor of the bill. “I think the ne­go­ti­ated agree­ment or the deal, so to speak, that the ad­min­is­tra­tion has laid out is very weak; I’m not sure that it will ever come to fruition, but I want the Ir­a­ni­ans to know that Con­gress is really ser­i­ous about this.”

Some ana­lysts said that the le­gis­la­tion was writ­ten “clev­erly” to co­di­fy the terms of the in­ter­im agree­ment the ad­min­is­tra­tion has laid out.

“It doesn’t pass any new sanc­tions un­less cer­tain con­tin­gen­cies are met,” said Mat­thew Kroenig, a seni­or fel­low with the At­lantic Coun­cil.

“I don’t think it will scuttle talks. Ir­an will scream bloody murder, I’m guess­ing. But I don’t think it’s enough to back out.”

Oth­er ana­lysts said that law­makers’ ef­forts could back­fire, end talks with Ir­an, and prove the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s worst fears true.

“A meas­ure like this is es­sen­tially draw­ing a bright line to Ir­an’s hard-liners, who have been very crit­ic­al of the deal and are look­ing for any op­por­tun­ity to scuttle it,” said Mat­thew Duss, a policy ana­lyst with the lib­er­al Cen­ter for Amer­ic­an Pro­gress.

“It ser­i­ously un­der­mines the talks. … In­tro­du­cing this bill puts us on a path to one of two very neg­at­ive out­comes: war, or Ir­a­ni­an nuc­le­ar weapons.”

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 »
SANS PROOF
NRA Chief: Leftist Protesters Are Paid
1 days ago
UPDATE
NEW TRAVEL BAN COMING SOON
Trump Still on Campaign Rhetoric
1 days ago
UPDATE
“WE’RE CHANGING IT”
Trump Rails On Obamacare
1 days ago
UPDATE

After spending a few minutes re-litigating the Democratic primary, Donald Trump turned his focus to Obamacare. “I inherited a mess, believe me. We also inherited a failed healthcare law that threatens our medical system with absolute and total catastrophe” he said. “I’ve been watching and nobody says it, but Obamacare doesn’t work.” He finished, "so we're going to repeal and replace Obamacare."

FAKE NEWS
Trump Goes After The Media
1 days ago
UPDATE

Donald Trump lobbed his first attack at the “dishonest media” about a minute into his speech, saying that the media would not appropriately cover the standing ovation that he received. “We are fighting the fake news,” he said, before doubling down on his previous claim that the press is “the enemy of the people." However, he made a distinction, saying that he doesn't think all media is the enemy, just the "fake news."

FBI TURNED DOWN REQUEST
Report: Trump Asked FBI to Deny Russia Stories
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"The FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump's associates and Russians known to US intelligence during the 2016 presidential campaign, multiple US officials briefed on the matter tell CNN. But a White House official said late Thursday that the request was only made after the FBI indicated to the White House it did not believe the reporting to be accurate."

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