Supporters of draft legislation on Iran sanctions being floated on Capitol Hill are taking a cautious approach in the face of a threatened presidential veto, deferring consideration of the measure by a week to help build support to overcome White House opposition.
The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee put off until Jan. 29 a hearing set for Thursday to consider the legislation, which would tighten the screws on Tehran in stages if a final nuclear deal is not reached by June 30. The draft legislation wouldn’t require President Obama to get congressional approval to implement the agreement, which many GOP senators had insisted on.
“There will be a chance for everyone in Congress to weigh in on it,” a congressional source said, speaking on background.
Negotiators from the “P5+1” group — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia — wrapped up the latest round of talks with Iran on Sunday without reaching agreement on limiting that country’s nuclear program and without setting a definitive date for new talks. The talks are aimed at reaching a final deal before the deadline to replace a November 2013 interim agreement is missed for a third time. Negotiators hope to have the framework for a permanent deal in place by March and finalize it before the extension runs out June 30.
According to a draft of the bill by Sens. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Bob Menendez, D-N.J., released Friday, if no final deal is reached by then, sanctions that had been waived as part of the interim deal would be reinstated on July 6 and additional sanctions would be imposed, starting with tighter restrictions on Iran’s access to markets for its oil, though Obama would have the power to waive those in the national interest.
The legislation would bar any new waivers of sanctions until Congress has the chance to review any final deal for 30 legislative days — about two to three months in real time.
“It creates a pause,” the source said, noting that it delays, but does not bar, Obama from bypassing Congress in implementing a final deal.
Several Republican lawmakers, however, insist congressional approval of a final deal is essential.
“I’m willing to forgo sanctions … if the president will take any deal he negotiates and brings it to Congress for our approval. If he thinks sanctions is disruptive to a good outcome, I’m willing to forgo that vote with the understanding that any bill he negotiates will come to the Congress for our approval or disapproval as a check and balance,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Support for new sanctions doesn’t appear to have diminished among lawmakers, in spite of Obama’s veto threat and the unusual step of having British Prime Minister David Cameron lobby against the legislation during a visit to Washington on Friday.
“I think the only issue now is the timing. We hope that negotiations will go satisfactorily and Iran will not become a nuclear weapons state. But if they move in that direction, we’re going to pass tougher sanctions. The question is when do we do it, and that’s the issue and discussions taking place on Capitol Hill,” Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., told Fox News Sunday.
The administration strongly opposes any new sanctions and has insisted such a move would blow up the talks and make it more likely that Iran could obtain a nuclear weapon. Iranian officials have warned they could break off the talks if Congress imposes new conditions, which both Tehran and the White House view as a violation of the interim agreement.
“There is no need for any U-turns in the negotiations. There is only a need for everybody to recognize that negotiating and putting pressure don’t go hand in hand,” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told Press TV on Monday.
But even experts who support the negotiations have noted that the White House does not seem to be doing much, if anything, to give political cover to lawmakers who support its position.
Obama reportedly sparked a sharp confrontation with Menendez, the Democratic co-author of the sanctions bill, on Thursday when he suggested lawmakers were bowing to pressure from donors, to which Menendez reportedly stood up and said he took “personal offense.”
The reference to “donors” was widely interpreted to mean supporters of Israel, which opposes any concessions to Iran on the nuclear issue.
A group of senators including Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., met Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but a spokesman was unable to say whether Iran was discussed.
The meeting with Netanyahu came a day after another sign that Iran continues to support terrorism — an issue that many lawmakers are concerned is being overlooked in the rush to a nuclear deal. On Sunday, an Israeli airstrike killed an Iranian Revolutionary Guards general and several other Iranians who were traveling with members of the Lebanese Shiite extremist group Hezbollah on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights near the Israeli border.
Israeli sources said the men were preparing an attack on the Jewish state.
Meanwhile, an Argentine prosecutor who accused President Cristina Fernandez of orchestrating a coverup on behalf of Iran in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center was found dead Monday of a gunshot wound in his apartment. Officials called the death of Alberto Nisman a suicide, but concerns persist about a possible Iranian role.
“I call on Argentine authorities to ensure that a credible and transparent investigation into his death is carried out,” said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. “I also urge the Fernandez government to resist any efforts to whitewash Iran’s true role in the 1994 bombing.”
