Proposed Legislation Would Undermine Efforts to Prevent a Nuclear Iran
Yesterday, Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) introduced new legislation that could increase sanctions on Iran and compel the United States to support Israel if it launches a pre-emptive attack on the Iranian nuclear program. If passed, such a measure from Congress would likely be seen as a violation of the international agreement negotiated between the P5+1 and Iran last month in Geneva, which is why President Barack Obama has issued a veto threat. The legislation would essentially derail the already delicate international negotiations, as a recent intelligence assessment found. The collapse of talks would leave few options to prevent a nuclear Iran, all of which are less likely than diplomacy to achieve the goal.
As NSN Executive Director John Bradshaw said in response to proposal:
“If this misguided bill succeeds in derailing negotiations, we will be right back where we’ve been for the past decade: Iran on a path to a nuclear weapon and only bad options – including a military option – to stop them from getting one. Members of Congress need to spend the holiday recess listening carefully to their constituents, who polling shows are opposed to military action against Iran.”
Intelligence community and policy experts: Sanctions bill is unnecessary and would derail negotiations which are the best chance to prevent nuclear Iran. Yesterday the White House denounced the new sanctions effort stating, “We don’t want to see action that will proactively undermine American diplomacy… We made it very clear to the Senate that it is not the time for new Iran sanctions. We don’t think it will be or should be enacted.” This is based on a recent intelligence assessment that found, “New sanctions would undermine the prospects for a successful comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran.”
Moreover, as Colin Kahl, Director of the Middle East Security program at CNAS explains, “Since no one—especially the Iranian regime—doubts that Congress will slap Tehran with additional penalties in six months time if it violates the terms set at Geneva or drags its feet in continuing negotiations, the value of stating the obvious now in legislation is unclear. But beyond being unnecessary, the move to enshrine the threat of future sanctions is unnecessarily provocative. Even if new sanctions do not kick in immediately, passing such legislation now would most likely be viewed in Tehran as evidence of American bad faith.” [Jay Carney via al Monitor, 12/19/13. DNI Assessment via al Monitor, 12/19/13. Colin Kahl, 12/10/13.]
Failure of negotiations increases likelihood of nuclear Iran, plays into the hands of Iranian hardliners. Former National Security Advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft write in a recent letter, “Should the United States fail to take this historic opportunity, we risk failing to achieve our non-proliferation goal and losing the support of allies and friends while increasing the probability of war.” As Kahl explains, “The Revolutionary Guard and other Iranian hard-liners are deeply skeptical of the Geneva agreement and are keen to put the brakes on further accommodation.” [Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, 11/18/13. Colin Kahl, 12/10/13]
Collapse of negotiations would leave options that are less able to achieve goal of preventing nuclear Iran. Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution lays out the alternatives should the negotiations fail:
Hold out for a another deal: However this would be “highly unlikely,” and “it is critical to recognize how the international environment would probably change if the United States and its allies rejected the deal now being debated… If Washington — rather than Tehran — rejects the deal under consideration, the United States will suddenly become the problem, and that could prove disastrous.”
Containment: Pollack states that containment is a real option. However, “it would be easier to contain a nonnuclear Iran than a nuclear one, and getting a deal now is the best way to ensure that,” and “containment would suffer significantly if international support turned against the sanctions and other measures designed to pressure Iran. And again, by turning down a deal that most of the world considers reasonable, the United States would probably shift international opinion from our side to the Iranians.”
War: “Most of the evidence available indicates that a ‘limited’ military operation to destroy Iran’s nuclear program would be unlikely to remain limited. Iran would probably rebuild and retaliate, and we in turn would escalate. We could easily find ourselves in a much larger and longer war than we wanted. Here, as well, the loss of international support we would suffer from turning down the deal would undermine our military effort.”
[Kenneth Pollack, 11/15/13]
Sanctions sponsors are outliers; Senate committee chairs rebuke sanctions measure. Yesterday, in response to the proposed legislation, the Chairs of ten Senate committees including Tim Johnson of the Banking Committee, Dianne Feinstein of the Intelligence Committee and Carl Levin of the Armed Services Committee wrote a letter stating their opposition to the measure: “If Iran fails at anytime to abide by the terms of the JPA [Joint Plan of Action], or the JPA is not succeeded by a final long-term agreement that verifiably ensures that Iran’s nuclear program is entirely for peaceful purposes, Congress should promptly consider new sanctions legislation. However, at this time, as negotiations are ongoing, we believe that new sanctions would play into the hands of those in Iran who are most eager to see the negotiations fail.” [Chairmen Letter, 12/18/13]
