January 17-2014
The Senate sanctions bill now has more than enough sponsors to pass and is working its way toward a veto-proof majority. As passage appears closer, however, Iran is backing away from its declaration that passage would mean the end of the nuclear talks with the Big Six.
As of Tuesday night, the bill had 59 sponsors from the Senate’s 100 members. That is not an estimate or claim, but rather the count of actual signatures formally attached to the bill.
The sponsors include all but two of the Senate’s 45 Republicans; Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Jeff Flake of Arizona have so far declined to sign on.
The sponsors also include 16 of the Senate’s 55 Democrats and independents or less than 30 percent.
The bill’s backers are trying to line up 67 sponsors as that would mean a two-thirds majority, sufficient to override President Obama’s promised veto. Obama has only vetoed two bills thus far in his six years in office.
It isn’t clear the backers will be able to get another eight sponsors from the remaining 39 senators. No additional senator has signed on so far this week, and 10 senior Democrats—all committee chairs—have signed a letter denouncing the whole idea of passing new sanctions when talks are underway with Iran.
Most of the other 29 Democrats have remained mum on the issue and have not committed themselves one way or the other. However, three Democrats came out publicly this week and said they will not join in sponsoring the bill—Tim Kaine of Virginia, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Chris Murphy of Connecticutt.
More imprtantly, however, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticutt, who is one of the 16 Democrats who have signed onto the bill, said he questioned whether there should be a vote on the bill at this time. There was talk brewing about the Senate that other Democrats who signed on as co-sponsors now have doubts and do not want a vote right away. It looked like the bill might just be left in limbo for the time being.
The bill would not impose any new sanctions while the talks are underway; the sanctions would take effect only if Iran violated the new interim agreement or the talks broke down.
However, last month Foreign Minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif said flatly that Iran would not participate in any more talks if the US Congress passed any new sanctions—even if those sanctions would not take effect during talks. Mere passage would mean Iran would walk out of the talks, he said.
But when a majority of senators signed on as co-sponsors, the Islamic Republic started having second thoughts and backed away from that threat. Last Wednesday, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, the deputy foreign minister for Europe and the Americas, said passage of the Senate bill would not be helpful. “These moves will not be useful,” he said. “Such moves will poison the atmosphere.” But he very pointedly did not repeat the threat to walk out.
The irony is that, if Iran does walk out of the talks, that would then trigger the sanctions. The Islamic Republic would then be the perpetrator of just what it opposes.
Foreign Minister Zarif has been silent on the topic recently.
Another major figure who has been silent is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. He has avoided saying if he would allow the sanctions bill to come to the floor for a vote. But on Tuesday he said enignatically that the Senate is “going to wait and see how this plays out.”
Senate-watchers assumed that Reid figured he now had enough support to leave the bill in limbo for now—that he would not allow the bill on the floor any time soon, but it would still remain alive and could be called up at any point if Iran did somethinmg that riled a large number of senators.
The Administration has increased its pressure on the Senate to halt the sanctions bill in recent days. President Obama has publicly reiterated his intent to veto any sanctions legislation passed during talks. And the Administration is trying to mobilize public opinion by warning that passage of new sanctions is akin to going to war against Iran.
The National Security Council issued a statement Friday saying: “If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be upfront with the American public and say so. Otherwise, it’s not clear why any member of Congress would support a bill that possibly closes the door on diplomacy and makes it more likely that the United States will have to choose between military options or allowing Iran’s nuclear program to proceed.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, introduced a resolution that garnered a lot of attention as a seeming effort to torpedo further talks. But that was an exaggeration. First, the legislation was drafted as a resolution, not a bill, and is therefore a mere expression of opinion, not a legal mandate.
The text says Washington should not enter into bilateral talks with Iran until Iran frees all Americans it is holding and “publicly affirms the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.” But that is not a proposal to end the nuclear talks since the text applies only to “bilateral” talks with Iran, a point most news stories about the resolution missed.