Group items tagged

Regardless of its concrete sequencing, sanction relief will constitute a key element of any final deal between Iran and the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany. But it is far from certain that the Iranian economy will actually benefit from sanction relief as it will not automatically translate into a change of behavior among private actors. Indeed, a continuing absence of foreign businesses would mean no increase in state revenue which could gradually undermine the willingness of the Iranian leadership to abide by the terms of a final deal.

Gaining relief from these secondary sanctions probably ranks fairly high among the determining factors underpinning the motivation of Iran’s leadership to now also agree on limits on their nuclear program as well as put in place enhanced transparency measures.

But the current design of the U.S. sanction architecture creates two challenges for effective sanction relief.

Disproportionality is the first principle required to make the threat of re-imposed sanctions credible. Even a small Iranian violation should trigger a massive re-imposition of sanctions. If Iran were to cheat, it would likely start small, as Tehran tested the resolve of the international community. The United States and its allies cannot accept a situation in which Iran whittled away at its nuclear obligations while avoiding economic costs. Snapback provisions should make clear that even one-off violations would result in cutting off Iran’s banks from the global financial system and curtailing all oil sales.

Autonomy is the second principle that must be followed. Washington policymakers must make clear to Tehran that U.S. sanctions would be re-imposed if Iran cheated — even if Iran’s allies manage to block re-imposition of U.N.  sanctions. 

The United States and its European Union allies must signal a willingness to go it alone on sanctions if necessary.

This is what the modern American war room looks like: the clocks on the wall show the times in Kabul, Tehran and Bogota. The faces around the conference table are mostly young. There is talk of targets, and of middle-of-the-night calls to Europe.

By turning to sanctions in response to Russia's intervention in Ukraine, Obama reinforced a trend: He - and George W. Bush before him - increasingly have used financial warfare, rather than the overtaxed U.S. military, in crises from North Korea to Iran to Syria.

It has made OFAC's war room something of a front line for the United States and its allies.

Forty-nine senators have signed on to the Iran sanctions bill, and more will. Traditionally pro-Israel Democrats Tim Kaine (Va.), Chris Murphy (Conn.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.) have yet to sign on. Among Republicans, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), who once tried to ingratiate himself with pro-Israel Christian conservatives, has not signed on. (Continuing his pattern of separating himself from Paul’s reflexive isolationism, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has signed on.)

The bipartisan roster exerts pressure on Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to make good on his promise to bring the bill to the floor.

The anti-sanctions crowd remains a gaggle made up of far-left activists, State Department sycophants and reluctant Democratic chairmen dragooned into opposing the measure by the White House.

Vladimir Putin is also edging toward a deal with Iran that would make a mockery of the P5+1 interim agreement with Iran. News reports confirm that ”Russia could exchange nonmonetary goods for up to 500,000 barrels of Iranian petroleum each day under the possible arrangement, which may ultimately pave the way for as much as $20 billion in trade, insiders told [Reuters] for a Wednesday report.

The recent reports prompted Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) to write to President Obama on Monday telling him, “If Iran moves forward with this effort to evade U.S. sanctions and violate the terms of oil sanctions relief provided for in JPA, the United States should respond by re-instating the crude oil sanctions, rigorously enforcing significant reductions in global purchases of Iranian crude oil, and sanctioning any violations to the fullest extent of the law.”

Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a sanctions guru, is quoted as saying, “If Washington can’t stop this deal, it could serve as a signal to other countries that the United States won’t risk major diplomatic disputes at the expense of the sanctions regime.”

By David H. Petraeus and Vance Serchuk

Largely absent from the debate, however, has been a fuller consideration of the strategic implications a nuclear agreement could have on the U.S. position in the Middle East.

But lifting sanctions would also lead to the economic empowerment of a government that is the leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Yet once again, the Obama administration is asking Congress to hold off on additional sanctions to give time for diplomacy to work. Tougher sanctions, we are warned, could upset the delicate balance inside Iran and poison the well for a deal. I disagree. Tough sanctions are exactly what has brought Iran to the table now, and tightening sanctions as we engage diplomatically affords us the opportunity to apply further pressure and force Iran’s leaders to choose between regime survival and a nuclear weapon.

More than a quarter of the Senate defied President Barack Obama on Thursday by introducing legislation that could raise sanctions on Iran, and compel the United States to support Israel if it launches a pre-emptive attack on the Iranian nuclear program.

A Senate vote won’t happen until January at the earliest and it’s unclear if the bill will have enough support. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has effectively blocked the issue from being addressed before legislators adjourn for 2013.

Highlighting the opposition to new sanctions, Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., penned an opinion piece Thursday saying the package of restrictions “would run the risk of derailing efforts toward a peaceful resolution, and risk the unity we have achieved with the world community that has been so crucial.”

The Obama administration is going to war with its own party to save its peace talks with Iran.

The White House brought their fight with Congressional Democrats out in the open Thursday evening when National Security Staff member Bernadette Meehan sent an incendiary statement lashing out at pro-sanctions Democrats to a select group of reporters, accusing them of being in favor of a strike on Iran.

In the op-ed Menendez called his legislation a “diplomatic insurance policy” and “an act of reasonable pragmatism.”

Thursday, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), denied by his majority leader a vote on a sanctions bill that would pass with more than 70 votes, explained in detail the administration’s gross mishandling of negotiations.

Bottom line: They dismantle nothing. We gut the sanctions.

The legislation is not the problem. Congress is not the problem. Iran is the problem. We need to worry about Iran, not the Congress.

President Obama faced mounting bipartisan pressure on Friday to drop his resistance to an Iran sanctions bill after Tehran announced a new generation of equipment to enrich uranium

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez, D-N.J., told Fox News that the "Iranians are showing their true intentions" with their latest announcement.

Menendez said he, like the president, wants to test the opportunity for diplomacy.  "The difference is that we want to be ready should that diplomacy not succeed," the senator said. "It's getting Congress showing a strong hand with Iranians at the same time that the administration is seeking negotiation with them. I think that that's the best of all worlds."

Senior Iranian officials now say that Tehran will not suspend its contested nuclear enrichment program until the West first agrees to lift all economic sanctions on the country.

“We can negotiate about suspending part of our nuclear activities only if the entire sanctions program is annulled,” said Ahmad Salek, chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s Cultural Commission.

“It’s completely insane to pretend you can negotiate with these terrorists as if they weren’t hardened Islamic radicals,” said one senior congressional aide who works on the sanctions issue. “Just because a terrorist calls himself a diplomat, doesn’t mean he’s not a terrorist.”

Leading Democratic and Republican senators are crafting legislation to reinstate the full force of sanctions and impose new ones if Iran doesn't make good on its pledge to roll back its nuclear program, brushing aside the Obama administration's fears about upending its diplomatic momentum.

Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., hope to have the bill ready for other lawmakers to consider when the Senate returns Dec. 9

Many in Congress are skeptical, if not outright hostile, to the deal

Sanctions relief given to Iran in return for its agreement to suspend part of its nuclear program are not as limited or as reversible as the White House claims, analysts and some lawmakers say.

Critics say reimposing the sanctions will be difficult especially for the Europeans who make decisions by consensus.

The United Kingdom, France and Germany may agree but Sweden, Italy and Malta may not, Dubowitz said.

Secretary of State John Kerry urged members of Congress Tuesday not to pursue tougher sanctions against Iran

"Believe me, we are all skeptical," Kerry told members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. "But we now have the best chance we've ever had" to negotiate a comprehensive agreement with Iran.

"We're asking you to give our negotiators and our experts the time and the space to do their jobs," Kerry said. That means "to hold off with new sanctions while we negotiate. I'm not saying never. I'm just saying not right now."

By Trita Parsi, Special to CNN

It's either a deal or another war in the Middle East.

It is true that Iran is eager to get a deal.

By Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian

To prevent such a breakthrough from materializing, hawks in Tel Aviv and Washington are pushing a misleading proposal on “freeing up funds.” “My biggest concern is that if the administration takes out a brick from the sanctions regime, you won’t be able to put it back together,” asserted Mark Dubowitz, Executive Director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He called the “freeing up funds” plan a way to offer a concession without changing the sanctions. About USD 50 billion of Iran’s oil revenue is currently held in escrow accounts in countries that continue to import oil from Iran. Iran employs these assets to pay for imports from these countries. The resumption of nuclear negotiations has provided Israeli hawks and US hardliners the opportunity to freeze these funds entirely. Their suggestion that President Obama temporarily allow Iran access to those funds is most likely tied to nuclear concessions. Iran’s compliance will result in monetary rewards which leave the structure of the current unilateral and multilateral sanctions regimes imposed by United Nations, US, and Europeans intact. Failure to comply, however, will result in the freezing of Iran’s assets abroad and placing it under a virtual embargo. Therefore, this proposal is in fact nothing but a Trojan horse. This policy not only blocks the nuclear deal, but would complicate the situation further at a time when—after a decade—the world powers and Iran are in a position to reach a final deal if the US can deliver real action on sanctions relief.

As the White House sees it, there are three potential outcomes for the negotiations. The first, and most preferable, is that a deal is struck that curbs Iran’s nuclear program, opening the country up for inspections while providing sanctions relief in return. During a working cocktail party at the White House with Senate Democrats on Tuesday night, President Barack Obama estimated the odds of reaching such an agreement at “less than 50/50.

The second is that a deal falls apart and the blame is placed on Iran. In that scenario, the administration still holds out hope that the international community, including countries such as Russia and China that are not always friendly to the U.S., would rally with escalated sanctions that could potentially bring Iran “back to the table.”

That is all lost in the third, and most disastrous, scenario, in which talks fall apart and the U.S. is perceived to be at fault. In that case, American officials fear international support for the negotiation effort would diminish, and the future sanctions regime and the likelihood of resuscitating talks would be imperiled, if not eliminated entirely.

The true burden of sanctions is that this economy is a shadow of what it might be.

This cost in lost opportunity will only grow if Iran can’t make a nuclear deal that would ease the squeeze on oil sales and banking.

The middle class here is especially squeezed

Iran suspended its most sensitive nuclear development work Monday and world powers immediately responded by lifting some of the sanctions

The United States, a chief skeptic of Iran’s claims and long the main international driver for tough sanctions on Iran, reacted with both praise and skepticism, saying it was an “important step forward” but also warning that the restrictions would be quickly reinstated if Iran reneges on its efforts.

Iran would receive about $4.2 billion in sanctions relief over the six-month period to reach a final deal, plus perhaps $2 billion in associated trade, U.S. officials said. Senior Obama administration officials have called the relief a “drop in the bucket” compared with the billions of oil revenue that the global sanctions on Iran have left tied up in international banks.