By Andrew Szarejko
“If the bill becomes law, Iran will correctly understand it as a means of subverting the Obama administration’s diplomatic effort to reach a comprehensive nuclear deal. Iran’s leaders have threatened to abandon negotiations altogether if the bill passes, but even if they don’t, making progress will become difficult if not impossible.”
Reprinted in the Trentonian (NJ) and the Sun-Sentinel (FL)
“The crush of sanctions is what brought the Iranians to the table. The Iranians don’t need legislation that promises new sanctions if talks fail to remind them what they already know: Legislation or not, the U.S. will ratchet up sanctions if this rare attempt at diplomacy fails. Of that, there is little doubt.”
“The trouble is, the Obama administration considers the Senate bill a violation of the deal the senators profess to respect. So do the Iranians, wh0 vow to walk away from the table should anything like it pass. And yet The Washington Post has reported that “a near filibuster-proof majority of senators [are] now willing to approve fresh legislation, according to senior Senate aides.”
Reprinted in the New Haven Register (CT), the Sterling Journal-Advocate (CO) the Troy Record (NY), the Carlsbad Current-Argus (NM), and the Long Beach Press Telegram (CA)
“As the administration has acknowledged, an agreement in which Iran agrees to the purely peaceful use of nuclear power will be difficult to achieve. But the interim agreement, which admittedly came to pass only thanks to the pressure of U.S. and international sanctions, at least creates the possibility of such a breakthrough. If the current negotiations fail or Iran reneges on its commitments, there will be ample time for Congress to enact new sanctions. Meanwhile, the best congressional insurance policy for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran is patience.”
Reprinted in the Milford Daily News (MA) and the Metro West Daily News (MA)
“The leaders of the so-called P5+1 — the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — should be commended for using sanctions as they were intended: to convince Iran that the cost of developing nuclear weapons was simply too high. Congress should let the process play out. As the post-9/11 era shows, it’s much easier to begin military conflicts than it is to end them.”
“American officials have made clear that if Iran cheats, any sanctions that had been eased would be reimposed and tougher ones enacted. Nevertheless, these commitments have not dissuaded lawmakers like Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Mark Kirk, a Republican from Illinois, from pushing legislation that would impose new sanctions. This would violate the interim agreement and set unworkable conditions for a final deal. Israel’s government and pro-Israel interest groups are pressing the same hard line.”
“After 35 years of mistrust and quasi-war, it is worth testing Iranian good faith, while keeping a wary eye on Iranian ambitions and verifying promises with inspections. We will know soon enough if Iran backs its words with actions. The six-month agreement and the potential for a longer-term agreement are the best chance for reversing Iran’s nuclear program short of war. Congress should give it a chance.”
“The bill is useful only if held in reserve. The fact that it has so many sponsors is sufficient to deliver the message to Iran. Passing it, on the other hand, virtually guarantees an end to negotiations and a quick path to war. The Iranians are already committed to walking out if the bill passes, despite President Obama’s promise of a veto, and they appear to be within months of a nuclear capability that both Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have said that they will not allow.”
Reprinted in the Courier-Post (NJ), the Vineland Daily Journal (NJ), and the Hamilton Spectator (Ontario)
“Nevertheless, the senators already may have accomplished the maximum good by proposing the bill, thereby raising the pressure on the administration and Iran. Passing it — which probably would require overcoming a presidential veto — would be problematic. Among other things, the bill inserts Congress into the negotiations by spelling out provisions that must be included in a final deal and linking the new sanctions to terrorism, Iran’s missile tests and a nuclear settlement.
Reprinted in the New Britain Herald (CT) and the Bristol Press (CT)
