The Obama administration has taken a hard line against any new sanctions legislation in Congress while it keeps trying to negotiate a deal with Tehran that would limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
But for many lawmakers, the administration’s uncompromising stance contrasts poorly with what they see as too much willingness to compromise in the talks, which were extended for a second time Monday after negotiators failed to agree on a permanent replacement for a November 2013 interim deal that was supposed to last six months.
And the more President Obama is seen as willing to give in to Iran, the more support emerges for tougher sanctions.
“I’m going to be working as hard as I can to get a veto-proof majority in the Senate and the House,” Sen. Mark Kirk told the Washington Examiner. “I’m confident that we’re going to get there.”
The Illinois Republican teamed up with Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey, outgoing chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to craft a bipartisan sanctions bill that was bottled up in the Senate by outgoing Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., at the Obama administration’s request. He said that will be the basis for new legislation in the 114th Congress.
Key Democrats in both chambers have joined Republicans in warning Obama that they will not accept a deal that ensures Iran will never be able to develop a nuclear weapon, and their skepticism of the administration’s conduct of the talks is fueled by comments from officials in Tehran indicating U.S. negotiators have already let that goal slip away.
“For the past year, Iran has received economic relief and Congress has refrained from passing increased sanctions in a good-faith effort by the United States and our allies to enhance the chance of a diplomatic solution. What was clear to many of us before should now be clear to everyone: Iran is not negotiating in good faith. We need tougher sanctions to empower tougher diplomacy against a regime intent on building nuclear weapons that would threaten the United States, destabilize the region and pose an existential threat to Israel,” said Rep. Gary Peters of Michigan, the only new Democratic senator elected in November as Republicans captured the majority in that chamber.
In response, the White House has dug in, reminding lawmakers that sanctions could cause the talks to collapse, an outcome many supporters of new sanctions are willing to risk.
“We continue to believe that adding on sanctions while negotiations are ongoing would be counterproductive,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday after the new extension was announced.
Obama “has become a prisoner of his own arguments against critics of the interim deal. The administration has called these critics warmongers from the start. As is becoming apparent now that talks will be extended, the White House will have us believe that the only alternative to the current framework is war,” wrote Emanuele Ottolenghi and Saeed Ghasseminejad of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies on Wednesday.
Observers and lawmakers say the administration’s approach toward its congressional critics has increased both their skepticism of its negotiating strategy and the chance of new sanctions legislation being enacted by a veto-proof majority.
“What the administration has to worry about is a situation in which Democratic senators give up on the administration, not so much giving up on Iran but losing confidence in the administration’s ability to negotiate well or to handle them well,” said Edward Levine, national advisory board member of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.
If the administration wants Democrats to help kill a sanctions bill it opposes, officials need to work with them to craft sanctions legislation it can live with, and show that it’s willing to make a deal with Congress, he said.
“I would think there would be some pressure to talk, to explore possibilities for useful legislation,” he said.
