On January 9, the White House warned that a new Iran sanctions bill proposed in the Senate could push the United States toward war with Iran. The “Iran Nuclear Weapon Free Act” is co-sponsored by more than one-half of the 100 Senators, largely Republican but including several key Democrats. President Obama has threatened to veto the bill if passed, but the legislation may get enough bipartisan support to make it veto-proof. In response, National Security Council spokesperson Bernadette Meehan issued the following statement:
This bill is in direct contradiction to the Administration’s work to peacefully resolve the international community’s concerns with Iran’s nuclear program. We know that this proposed legislation would divide the international community, drive the Iranians to take a harder line, and possibly end negotiations. This bill would have a negative bearing on the sanctions regime too. Let us not forget: sanctions work because we convinced our partners to take the steps that we seek. If our partners no longer believe that we are serious about finding a negotiated solution, then our sanctions regime would suffer.
If Congress passes this bill, it will be proactively taking an action that will make diplomacy less likely to succeed. The American people have been clear that they prefer a peaceful resolution to this issue. If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be up front 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.
The President has been clear that he has a responsibility to fully test whether we can achieve a comprehensive solution through diplomatic means, before he pursues alternatives. Passing new sanctions legislation right now will undermine our efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution.
If Congress passes this bill, it will be proactively taking an action that will make diplomacy less likely to succeed. The American people have been clear that they prefer a peaceful resolution to this issue. If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be up front 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.
The President has been clear that he has a responsibility to fully test whether we can achieve a comprehensive solution through diplomatic means, before he pursues alternatives. Passing new sanctions legislation right now will undermine our efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif has warned that new sanctions are in violation of the Geneva agreement signed by Iran and the world’s six major powers on November 24. He said new Congressional action would kill diplomacy.
Robert Menendez (D- New Jersey) and Mark Kirk (R – Illinois) introduced the resolution on December 19, which “requires further reductions in purchases of Iranian petroleum and applies additional penalties to strategic elements of the Iranian economy, to include the engineering, mining and construction sectors.” Ten Democratic Senate committee chairs have circulated a joint letter warning that the Menendez resolution could undermine negotiations with Iran.
The following are excerpts from the proposed bill with a link to the full text.
S. 1881
To expand sanctions imposed with respect to Iran and to impose
additional sanctions with respect to Iran, and for other purposes.
…
TITLE I--EXPANSION AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS
Sec. 101. Applicability of sanctions with respect to petroleum transactions.
Sec. 102. Ineligibility for exception to certain sanctions for countries that do not reduce purchases of petroleum from Iran or of Iranian origin to a de minimis level.
Sec. 103. Imposition of sanctions with respect to ports, special economic zones, and strategic sectors of Iran.
Sec. 104. Identification of, and imposition of sanctions with respect to, certain Iranian individuals.
Sec. 105. Imposition of sanctions with respect to transactions in foreign currencies with or for certain sanctioned persons.
Sec. 106. Sense of Congress on prospective sanctions.
…
SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON NUCLEAR WEAPON CAPABILITIES OF IRAN.
…
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Government of Iran must not be allowed to developor maintain nuclear weapon capabilities;
(2) all instruments of power and influence of the United States should remain on the table to prevent the Government of Iran from developing nuclear weapon capabilities;
(3) the Government of Iran does not have an absolute or inherent right to enrichment and reprocessing capabilities and technologies under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970 (commonly known as the ``Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty'');
(4) the imposition of sanctions under this Act, including sanctions on exports of petroleum from Iran, is triggered by violations by Iran of any interim or final agreement regarding its nuclear program, failure to reach a final agreement in a discernible time frame, or the breach of other conditions described in section 301;
(5) if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapon program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence;
(6) the United States should continue to impose sanctions on the Government of Iran and its terrorist proxies for their continuing sponsorship of terrorism; and
(7) the United States should continue to impose sanctions on the Government of Iran for--
(A) its ongoing abuses of human rights; and
(B) its actions in support of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
…
SEC. 106. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PROSPECTIVE SANCTIONS.
It is the sense of Congress that, if additional sanctions are imposed pursuant to this Act and the Government of Iran continues to pursue an illicit nuclear weapons program, Congress should pursue additional stringent sanctions on Iran, such as sanctions on entities providing the Government of Iran access to assets of the Government of Iran held outside Iran, sanctions on Iran's energy sector, including its natural gas sector, and sanctions on entities providing certain underwriting, insurance, or reinsurance to the Government of Iran.
…
Click here for the full text.