• Home
• About Us
  • Advisory Board
  • Board of Directors
  • What We Believe
  • Staff
  • Contact NSN
• The War Room
  • Latest Briefings
  • Issue Memos
  • Afghanistan/Pakistan
  • China
  • Diplomacy
  • Energy
  • Competitiveness
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Military
  • Nuclear Security
  • Russia
  • Terrorism/Security
• Newsroom
  • Press Inquiries
• National Network
• Events
• Initiatives
  • NextGen
  • Iran
  • Resilience
  • Nuclear Security
• Donate

Ed Levine, Alireza Nader, and Ilan Goldenberg Quoted on LobeLog by Derek Davison

January 27, 2015 | LobeLog Foreign Policy

Arguing that sanctions have served their purpose, and that the promise of sanctions relief is key to securing Iran’s agreement to a comprehensive nuclear deal, three top foreign policy analysts were critical on Monday of congressional efforts to levy new sanctions against Tehran.

In a conference call with reporters, Ilan Goldenberg of the Center for a New American Security said that while “sanctions proved that [the United States] could hurt Iran economically,” what Iran needs now is proof that the US will be able to lift sanctions under the terms of an agreement, “that there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.” This runs contrary to the stated position of sanctions hawks in Congress and lobbying organizations like AIPAC, who frequently argue that if sanctions helped bring Iran to the bargaining table, then more sanctions will force it to accept terms that are more favorable to the US.

In fact, new sanctions would likely cause Tehran to back away from the talks, as RAND Corporation Iran analyst Alireza Nader pointed out. If Congress were to impose new sanctions now, he said, it would “reinforce the perception in Iran that sanctions will never be lifted.

Indeed, the most recent language of Kirk-Menendez, though weakened considerably from what it was a year ago, would likely trip several Iranian red flags. Ed Levine, who worked for 34 years as a staffer on both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, charitably described the bill as “a good example of the principle that it is really difficult to come up with a bill that helps the negotiations rather than hurting them.” Although the new version is an improvement over last year’s version, he added, it’s “still not good.”

 

For the original piece, click here.