U.S. senators on Thursday introduced a bill threatening new sanctions on Iran, despite White House warnings that the legislation could disrupt nuclear talks.
The measure allows for a 180-day suspension of sanctions to facilitate diplomacy, plus additional time if the White House judges a final deal to be imminent. The legislation also includes a “sense of Congress” that the “government of Iran does not have an absolute or inherent right to enrichment and reprocessing capabilities and technologies,” despite Tehran’s past statements that it does maintain such a right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who sponsored the Nuclear Weapon-Free Iran Act with 23 of his colleagues, argued that the measure would raise pressure on Iran to fully relinquish atomic activities that could support a future capacity to produce nuclear weapons.
Iran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful, and has warned that any new sanctions would threaten an initial multilateral agreement reached last month on the nation’s atomic efforts. The Obama administration hopes the November deal will help negotiators hammer out longer-term restrictions on the disputed Iranian nuclear activities.
“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 released remarks. “[Additional] sanctions will influence Iran’s calculus and accelerate that process toward achieving a meaningful diplomatic resolution.”
White House spokesman Jay Carney on Tuesday cautioned lawmakers against taking any immediate action to pass new sanctions legislation.
“If they were to impose or pass new sanctions now,” the move could “potentially scuttle the initial preliminary agreement,” Carney said.
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 »
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."
"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."