Congress: Heated Debate on New Sanctions

 

 

 

 

"[President Obama]expects us to stand idly by and do nothing while he cuts a bad deal with Iran," House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) told Republicans on January 21. "Two words: Hell no...We're going to do no such thing."

 

 

 

“The surest way to preserve peace is to prepare for war…thus, it may be up to Congress to restore the credible threat of force.”

“We need a shift in policy to a clear-eyed and hard-nosed policy of strength based on America’s interests and the threat posed by Iran. The goal must be clear — regime change.”

 

“The United States should cease all appeasement, conciliation and concessions toward Iran, starting with these sham nuclear negotiations.”

 

“What started as an unwise policy has now descended into a dangerous farce.”

 

“One can only suspect an unspoken entente between the Obama administration and Iran: the U.S. won’t impose new sanctions on Iran and we will allow it to build threshold nuclear capabilities while Iran won’t assemble a bomb until 2017.”

 

“I think you have to continue to maintain that pressure [through sanctions]. And I worry that … the Iranian regime, they think that they’re scoring points, they’re getting momentum. They look at the international stage and frankly look a lot better maybe than they did months ago because they have been engaged in negotiations and dialogue…So I worry that, over time, these sanctions, the current sanctions, have less significance.”

"These negotiations that are going on now are really not going to bear fruit.”

 

"I always hope that I wake up one morning and read that the supreme leader in Iran has become a normal person, but he is a radical cleric that shares a radical view of his theology.”

 

"[The negotiations] are nothing but an effort to buy time to gain some sanctions relief, but not give up any irreversible concessions on the part of the Iranian government."

 

 

“I strongly support the president’s call to Congress to refrain from imposing additional sanctions on Iran. New sanctions now would violate the interim agreement, collapse the negotiations and take us out of lockstep with the international community.

 

“We have a responsibility to support the diplomatic negotiations and see them through. If they fail to achieve a deal, then we should consider sanctions and next steps, but we shouldn’t prejudge that outcome.”

 

 

“If my colleagues are serious about restraining Iran’s nuclear ambitions, they will resist the temptation to intervene and instead let our negotiators finish the job.”

 

“While the JPOA is only a temporary agreement, Iran has complied with it and verifiably frozen and rolled back its nuclear program, demonstrating that it is willing to take negotiations seriously.

 

Congress could play an important oversight role while negotiators work to build on this progress and secure a verifiable and lasting nuclear agreement with Iran. But acting peremptorily to demand specific concessions from Iran could destabilize the diplomatic balance needed for negotiations to both continue and ultimately succeed. It would be unwise, for example, to lay out unrealistic or overly-specific requirements for a final agreement to be acceptable to Congress.”

 

“Imposing new or less flexible economic sanctions – which has been proposed by a number of my congressional colleagues, including Senators Kirk and Menendez – could do great damage to our prospects for a nuclear agreement with Iran. New punitive action could strengthen Iranian hard-liners and make their withdrawal from the negotiations more likely. Acting unilaterally could also undermine the stability of our international alliance, and thereby actually weaken the existing international sanctions regime.”

 

“The existing sanctions are, of course, a major reason that Iran is at the negotiating table, and Congress should stand ready to reimpose and strengthen them should Iran violate the terms of the JPOA or any future nuclear agreement. But taking punitive action now could send a message that Congress does not stand behind the negotiators.”

 

"There's not a rush on [passing a sanctions bill]. I mean these negotiations are going forward, I don't want to disrupt the negotiations. ... Our long-term allies are saying 'Don't do this.' So I don't know what the hurry is.”

 

"We all want the same thing. We want a non-nuclear Iran, and we prefer to get there diplomatically rather than by any other outcome. So this is really a question of strategy rather than end-goal.”

“I don’t want to do anything that makes people question whether we are negotiating fairly,” referencing new sanctions legislation

 

"I think there are some [Democrats] who are more anxious and want to create some incentive for the Iranians to do the right thing by putting pressure on them.”

"Others, like myself, feel that this is a once-in-a-political-lifetime opportunity (to get a deal with Iran). I just don't want to jeopardize the negotiations."

 

 “We often say that the purpose of sanctions is to get parties to the table. They are at the table, and so I'm confused by the notion that some would want to impose additional sanctions while negotiations are going on.”

 

 

“Are you ready to send ground troops into Iran? Are you ready to bomb them? Are you ready to send in 100,000 troops? I’m a big fan of trying to exert and trying the diplomatic option as long as we can. If it fails, I will vote to resume sanctions and I would vote to have new sanctions. But if you do it in the middle of negotiations, you’re ruining it.”

 

“My fear is that in eagerness, you know, to put more sanctions on those who are overly eager … could get us to a point where there are only two solutions: either Iran gets a bomb or there’s war, whereas right now we have a third solution which is a little better.”

 

“I’ve been talking with many Republicans and many Democrats to try to try find a way forward that does not ruin the chance for negotiations. I voted for sanctions in the past with the intention and the hope that we could find a peaceful outcome to this where Iran does not develop nuclear weapons.”

 

“My fear is that if new sanctions are placed on that, the sanctions coalition will break up.”

 

 

 

Congress “needs to show patience” while negotiations are underway because “the chances that this will become a military confrontation is heightened” if lawmakers try to pass new sanctions now.

 

“I will veto a bill that comes to my desk, and I will make this argument to the American people as to why I am doing so. I respectfully request for them to hold off for a few months to see if we have the possibility of solving a big problem without resorting potentially to war.”

“It’s my team that’s at the table. We are steeped in this stuff day in and day out. We don’t come to these assessments blindly.”

 

“If Iran proves unable to say yes [to a deal]… then we’re going to have to explore other options, and I would be the first to come to Congress and say we need to tighten the screws.”

 

“Our diplomacy is at work with respect to Iran, where, for the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material.  Between now and this spring, we have a chance to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that prevents a nuclear-armed Iran; secures America and our allies – including Israel; while avoiding yet another Middle East conflict.  There are no guarantees that negotiations will succeed, and I keep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran.  But new sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails – alienating America from its allies; and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again.  It doesn’t make sense.  That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress.  The American people expect us to only go to war as a last resort, and I intend to stay true to that wisdom.”

 

 

“Some members of Congress believe that the time has come to ratchet up sanctions on Iran. They argue that this is the most effective way to achieve the goal of getting Iran to give up its nuclear program. We in the administration believe that, at this time, increasing sanctions would dramatically undermine our efforts to reach this shared goal.”

 

"Some members of Congress believe that the time has come to ratchet up sanctions on Iran….They argue that this is the most effective way to achieve the goal of getting Iran to give up its nuclear program."

 

"We in the administration believe that, at this time, increasing sanctions would dramatically undermine our efforts to reach this shared goal.”

 

"We are still at the negotiating table for one reason, and one reason alone…We assess that we still have a credible chance of reaching the agreement we want."

 

“If new sanctions were imposed, Iran would be able to blame the U.S. for sabotaging the negotiations and causing the collapse of the process, and we would lose the chance to peacefully resolve a major national security challenge.”

 

"Even with a trigger [for new sanctions], if there's a bill that's signed into law, and it is US law, in our mind it is a violation of the Joint Plan of Action— which, as we've said, could encourage Iran to violate it.”

 

"A sanctions bill, trigger or not, that is passed and signed into law by the president, which we've said we will not do... would be a violation of the JPOA.”

 

“[If a deal does not come to pass] we could put initial sanctions on Iran in 24 hours."

"Sanctions alone do not stop Iran's nuclear program. It was through negotiations that we got to the Joint Plan of Action.”

 

 

“We believe that new sanctions are not needed at this time...To the contrary, new sanctions at this time, even with a delayed trigger, are more likely to undermine, rather than enhance, the chances of achieving a comprehensive agreement."
 – Jan. 21, 2015, during a Senate hearing

 

 

“It is our considered judgment and strongly held view that new sanctions, at this time, are both unnecessary and far from enhancing the prospects for successful negotiations, risk fatally undermining our diplomacy. There is nothing to be gained and everything to be lost by acting precipitously.”

 

“The U.S. Congress has played a vital role in getting us to where we are today and will undoubtedly play an important role going forward. Sanctions were instrumental in bringing Iran to the table. But Iran’s program continued until negotiations made the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) possible. Sanctions did not stop the advance of Iran’s nuclear program. Negotiations did, and it is in our interest not to deny ourselves the chance to achieve a long-term, comprehensive solution that would prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”

 

“Just as we have asked Iran to uphold its commitments under the JPOA, we have lived up to our commitment of providing Iran with limited relief – about $14 to $15 billion from the start of the JPOA through this June. But that relief is dwarfed by the vast amounts denied to Iran under the existing sanctions regime. For example, in 2014 alone, oil sanctions deprived Iran of more than $40 billion in oil revenue – well over twice the estimated value of the relief under the JPOA. And what oil revenues Iran is allowed to generate go into heavily restricted accounts that now encumber more than $100 billion dollars. Virtually the entire sanctions architecture remains in place. Indeed, throughout the existence of the JPOA, sanctions pressure on Iran has not decreased – it has increased.

 

"Congress is now considering legislation to impose additional sanctions on Iran, to be triggered by the failure of negotiations. I know that the intent of this legislation is to further increase pressure on Iran and, in so doing, to strengthen the hand of our negotiators to reach a comprehensive settlement. While the administration appreciates that intent, it is our considered judgment and strongly held view that new sanctions, at this time, are unnecessary and, far from enhancing the prospects for successful negotiations, risk fatally undermining our diplomacy and unraveling the sanctions regime so many in this body have worked so hard to establish."

 

“Those who are best placed to know – the diplomatic professionals who have been leading these negotiations and dealing directly with the Iranians and our international partners for the past several years – believe that the risks [of imposing new sanctions] are real, serious and totally unnecessary. That is their best judgment. Why run those risks and jeopardize the prospects for a deal that will either come together – or not – over the next two months? Why not be patient for a few more months to fully test diplomacy? There is nothing to be gained – and everything to be lost – by acting precipitously.”

 

 

“I think that the system, the regime, in Iran is different. We don't know how different and we don't know what the results will be. But this is -- their behavior is quite different from when Ahmadinejad was head of the government. And it seems to me that ought to try to take advantage of that.

 

The foreign minister has served in the U.N., at NATO. He's familiar with the West. The president -- they're talking different. And the mullahs are not nearly as vociferous as they were before.

 

Does that mean anything? We don't know. But it seems to me it's worth testing.

 

And I think two things are likely to happen if we increase the sanctions. They will break the talks. And a lot of the people who have now joined us in the sanctions would be in danger of leaving because most of the people who joined us in sanctions on Iran didn't do it to destroy Iran. They did it to help get a nuclear solution.”

 

 

“I think the breaking off of the negotiations or the collapse of the negotiations would rest and reverse the painful and difficult process of increasing moderation with then Iranian political life.

 

We're dealing with an old generation of revolutionaries, extremists and so forth. But there is in Iranian society significant change, which every visitor to Iran now notices, toward a more moderate attitude, a more moderate lifestyle, a more tempting inclination to emulate some Western standards, including even how in Tehran women are dressed.

 

All of that I think indicates that Iran is beginning to evolve into what it traditionally has been, a very civilized, important historically country. But we have to be very careful not to have this dramatic and suddenly reversed.

 

Not to mention the negative consequences for global stability that this would have. And the reduction and a willingness in Iranian, a willingness in some fashion to prevent the extremists and the fanatics that are attempting to seize control over the Muslim world from prevailing.”