November 29 2013
Congress is still talking about passing more and tougher sanctions, but now there is talk of not making them take effect unless Iran fails to uphold the new nuclear deal.
Sanctions remain very popular politically. But the Obama Administration argument that new sanctions at this juncture might torpedo the deal appears to have had an impact with the public and the members of Congress.
The talk now is of drafting more sanctions—so members can continue to posture as being tough on Iran—while delaying the implementation.
One option is to approve sanctions bill in the Senate but not go to a “conference” with the House, which already approved a tough sanctions bill in July, unless and until Iran is shown to be violating the new deal. A “conference” is a committee that irons out the differences between Senate- and House-passed bills.
Another option is to vote new sanctions into law, but provide that the sanctions will not actually take effect unless the House and Senate later approve a resolution triggering them.
Whatever particulars are decided, the chances that new sanctions will be imposed right away are now dim. In fact, if Congress did impose sanctions, President Obama would undoubtedly veto the legislation since he is committed to oppose sanctions for the next six months under the agreement signed Sunday.
But few members of Congress were expending words lauding Iran for signing the agreement. The general tenor of commentary was that the Islamic Republic is not to be trusted at all.
Lawmakers from both parties said Sunday they are skeptical that Iran will stick to the new nuclear deal and want Congress to prepare beefed-up economic penalties to hit Tehran if the accord falls apart.
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, said Sunday he would work with colleagues to have sanctions against Iran ready “should the talks falter or Iran fail to implement or breach the interim agreement.” Menendez is the single most important player in the sanctions legislation field.
He said, “I expect that the forthcoming sanctions legislation to be considered by the Senate will provide for a six-month window to reach a final agreement before imposing new sanctions on Iran, but will at the same time be immediately available should the talks falter or Iran fail to implement or breach the interim agreement.”
Such distrust that Iran was negotiating in good faith ran across political parties that are otherwise deeply divided. And ready-to-go sanctions seemed to have rare bipartisan support across both of Congress’ chambers.
The Senate returns to session December 9, so serious talks on any new legislation won’t begin until then.
In the House, the No. 2 Democrat, Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, said the threat of even tougher sanctions could help keep Iranian diplomats at the negotiating table. Hoyer said he supports having the sanctions ready to go in case Iran proves an unreliable negotiating partner.
“It is appropriate that we wait six months to implement those, which will say to the Iranians: ‘We need a final deal, and if not a final deal, these tougher sanctions are going to go into place,’” Hoyer said.
A deep distrust of Iran pervaded Sunday’s discussion of the deal.
“We need to be very, very careful with the Iranians,” said Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “I don’t trust them, I don’t think we should trust them. …. Sanctions should always be hanging there because that’s what brought Iran to the table in the first place.”
Rep. Ed Royce, the California Republican who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Iranians “are capable of cheating.”
Republican House Speaker John Boehner said, “Iran has a history of obfuscation that demands verification of its activities and places the burden on the regime to prove it is upholding its obligations in good faith while a final deal is pursued.”
Added Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia: “We’ve trusted the Iranians before—just like the North Koreans—on nuclear issues, and what have we gotten for it?”
