Opposition to Iran Sanctions Bill Grows Amid Ongoing Negotiations
As negotiators meet this week in Geneva on implementing the interim agreement reached in November between Iran and the P5+1 that froze Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for modest sanctions relief, analysts fear a push in Congress for sanctions legislation could collapse the deal. There has been widespread opposition to the legislation introduced in the Senate by Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) from former diplomats with decades of experience in negotiations as well as officials currently involved in the policy-making process. They see a failure of efforts to reach a final agreement with Iran as harmful to U.S. and allies’ interests. Reaching such an agreement with Iran will be difficult enough, and the Senate risks playing an unhelpful spoiler role.
The threat of additional sanctions could derail negotiations and risks “tit-for-tat” retaliatory escalation. Colin Kahl, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East from 2009 to 2011, writes in a recent National Interest article, “the threat of additional sanctions, at this critical juncture, could derail negotiations toward a peaceful solution.” Kahl further explains, “The Senate bill could also lead to provocative Iranian counter-reactions at an extraordinarily delicate moment for diplomacy. Indeed, nearly one hundred hardline Iranian parliamentarians have already drafted legislation that would mandate escalating enrichment to the nearly-bomb-grade 60 percent level if more U.S. sanctions are imposed. Given thirty-five years of distrust between Tehran and Washington, it would not take much perceived bad faith by either party to reverse the modicum of confidence built at Geneva. It is difficult to imagine negotiations surviving such a tit-for-tat retaliatory cycle.” Kahl also highlights the view from negotiators in the room that the “bill represents a poison pill that could kill diplomacy, making a nuclear-armed Iran or war more likely.” [Colin Kahl, 12/31/13]
Foreign policy leaders: Bill does not serve interest of U.S. or allies, calls on senators to “stand up firmly for the interests of the United States.” A group of highly respected foreign policy leaders wrote a letter earlier this week to Sen. Menendez (D-NJ), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and co-sponsor of the bill, stating, “The bill will threaten the prospects for success in the current negotiations and thus present us and our friends with a stark choice –military action or living with a nuclear Iran… President Obama’s decision to test the intentions of the new government of Iran offers the best opportunity in decades to see whether there is a peaceful way to achieve all of our most important objectives… The United States and its allies in the region would [be] better off if relieved of the concern that Iran might acquire a nuclear weapon. Israel would no longer have to be concerned that Iran could present an existential threat and would be in a stronger position to defend itself… Negotiators now need a chance to continue to their work. We ask that you stand up firmly for the interests of the United States, as you always have, and allow the negotiations to proceed.” The letter’s signatories include, among others, Amb. Ryan Crocker, Amb. Daniel Kurtzer, Amb. William H. Luers, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, Amb. Thomas R. Pickering, and Amb. Frank G. Wisner. [Letter, 1/6/14]
Widespread opposition to bill from key partners and stakeholders:
Senate leaders: 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 any time 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.” Additionally, Politico reports, “Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) said on Monday evening that the only way a sanctions bill from Iran hawks will be considered while diplomatic talks continue is by skipping his committee of jurisdiction and taking it straight to the Senate floor. While Johnson has a sanctions bill ready to go in case ongoing nuclear talks with Iran falter, he is keeping it on the backburner.” [Chairmen Letter, 12/18/13. Politico, 1/6/14]
State Department negotiators: The Navy Times reports that Secretary of State John Kerry told senators “that passing new sanctions legislation now would violate the interim deal negotiated with Iran on Nov. 24, which obligates the USA not to impose new sanctions while the six-month deal is underway. Iran would back out of the deal even if new sanctions passed by Congress are set to start only if the deal falls through or after it expires, Kerry said. And such an action would cause the collapse of the international sanctions coalition that has adhered to U.S. sanctions on Iran, Kerry said.” [Navy Times, 12/19/13]
The U.S. intelligence community: A recent unclassified U.S. intelligence assessment concluded new sanctions “would undermine the prospects for a successful comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran.” [SF Chronicle, 12/16/13]
International partners: During the last round of negotiations Sir Peter Westmacott, the British Ambassador to the U.S., spoke out against the sanctions push, writing: “We are keeping up the pressure. But further sanctions now would only hurt negotiations and risk eroding international support for the sanctions that have brought us this far. The time for additional measures will come if Iran reneges on the deal or if negotiations fail. Now is not that time.” [Peter Westmacott, 11/20/13]
