Iran's not-yet-completed heavy water-moderated reactor at Arak. Further development of the reactor is frozen as part of the six-month international deal designed to provide time for drafting a longer-term pact with Iran. New economic sanctions on Iran proposed by senators skeptical of the deal could undermine negotiations, the Obama administration says.
Given
the skeptical bipartisan response nine days ago to Secretary of State John Kerry at hearings focused on the six-month nuclear deal with Iran, it's no surprise that legislation imposing new economic sanctions on Tehran could be introduced as early as today,
writes Greg Sargent. Sponsors of any such legislation will include key Senate Democrats.
The Obama administration has warned that Iran could view this as a failure to negotiate in good faith. And it's been working hard in private and public to persuade Democrats to wait on any new sanctions at least until the six months is up. Existing sanctions are making the Iranian economy scream, and new sanctions could give Iran's hard-liners some we-told-you-so ammunition in their efforts to avoid negotiating a long-term agreement that would strictly limit Iran's nuclear program and verify those limits with intrusive international inspections of its nuclear facilities:
“Members of Congress pressing for this bill are effectively choosing to close the door on diplomacy, making it far more likely that we’ll be left only with a military option,” one senior administration official tells me, characterizing the message that’s being delivered directly to Senators. “You close the door on diplomacy, and you’re left only with a choice between a possible military option or Iran steadily advancing its nuclear program.” [...]
“It is not necessary for Congress to pass this bill, because we are enforcing existing sanctions and can move to sanctions if negotiations don’t succeed or if Iran cheats,” the senior administration official says. “The fact is, passing new sanctions now would split the international community, embolden Iranian hard-liners, and likely derail any prospect of a diplomatic resolution.”
More on these new sanctions below the fold.
It doesn't matter whether new sanctions were set to take effect now or in six months when the short-term deal with Iran expires, according to the administration. Either way, new sanctions could undermine both the six-month deal and the long-term agreement the administration and its overseas allies hope to draft with Iran. Among the Democrats who support a new sanctions bill are Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.
"If a bill is introduced, the significance would be that it would essentially be a vote of no confidence in this deal, and that would be very damaging," said Matthew Duss, a policy analyst with the liberal Center for American Progress. "If a bill is not introduced, the significance would be that the administration has been successful in holding off a challenge to the deal."
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who is part of the talks, said Wednesday that he is committed to pushing forward on a sanctions bill to keep pressure on Iran and would like to see a bill with strong, clear language and the broadest possible bipartisan coalition introduced as soon as possible.
Other Senate Democrats who support new sanctions include Chuck Schumer of New York, Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Mark Begich of Alaska.
Senate Democrats who oppose new sanctions include Barbara Boxer of California and Carl Levin of Michigan. The two penned an op-ed piece for Politico Wednesday, writing:
Nothing in this interim agreement restricts our ability to take appropriate measures should Iran fail to seize this opportunity. But allowing time for the United States and its allies to explore the possibility of a peaceful resolution is in our nation’s interest and in the interest of our friends and allies. It is clearly what the American people want and expect. And it is fully in keeping with our character as a nation dedicated to peace and a people who, as President Ronald Reagan once said, “resort to force reluctantly and only when they must.” We must make sure Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. If we can get that done through negotiations, it will be a double victory, one that will help give our children and grandchildren a more peaceful world.
Obviously, even those who oppose new sanctions at the moment are in step with the White House in terms of leaving, as the phrase has it, "all options on the table" in case no agreement is hammered out. Those options for keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon—which its leaders say it does not want and are not working to build—include military force. That is clear from Boxer and Levin's phrase "If we can get that done through negotiations..."
•••
12:46 PM PT: Eleven Democrats have now signed a letter opposing new sanctions.
Signers are: Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Tim Johnson, Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Mikulski, Tom Carper, Ron Wyden, John Rockefeller, Tom Harkin, Patrick Leahy.
•••
Flyswatterbanjo has a diary up on the subject here.