Foes Try New Ways To Attack Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal By Kristina Peterson And Jay Solomon
http://www.wsj.com/articles/foes-try-new-ways-to-attack-obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-1440802995
Republicans plan votes on new Tehran sanctions as Obama moves to lock up support to implement accord
WASHINGTON—Capitol Hill opponents of the landmark Iranian nuclear accord are devising a Plan B to ratchet up pressure on Iran as President Barack Obama moves closer to locking up the support needed to implement the deal.
Critics of the agreement in both parties haven’t yet conceded defeat in the congressional battle next month, where they will push to derail the deal.
But as their chances dim, they are preparing to push a rash of new legislation for the fall to increase sanctions on Tehran for its role in supporting terrorist organizations and militant groups active across the Mideast, which could cause Iran to back out of the deal. These politicians also are devising new ways to target the finances of Tehran’s elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
“Iran has a long rap sheet, and I want to continue to prosecute Iran for its bad behavior,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.
The administration has vowed to continue challenging Iran’s terrorist activities and support of militancy, even after a nuclear deal is completed.
But the fresh sanctions push has the potential to put the White House and leading Democrats, such as the party’s presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, in a quandary. Those supporters of the deal could later face a tough decision over whether to back increased sanctions against Iran.
There is growing concern in the White House that any steps viewed as imposing new sanctions could be seized on by the Iranian government to charge the U.S. with violating the nuclear agreement. Already, Iranian officials have argued Congress is seeking to simply reimpose these financial restrictions under the guise of fighting terrorism and human-rights abuses. Tehran’s position could be backed by Russia, China and the European Union—the other parties to the nuclear deal.
Under its terms, the U.S., EU and United Nations are committed to significantly scaling back sanctions imposed on Iran for its nuclear activities over the past decade. Many lawmakers worry such sanctions relief would unlock money that Iran would use to fund its militant proxies and U.S.-designated terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories.
“If we see with this unfreezing of assets that Iran is using it for terrorism, I think we have an obligation to go right after them again,” Mr. Barrasso said.
The GOP-controlled Congress will vote in September on a resolution disapproving the deal. The measure is expected to clear the House, but will face a tight vote in the Senate, where Democrats hope to block its passage in a procedural vote. Even if the resolution were to pass both chambers, Mr. Obama would veto it, and he is almost certain to have enough support to sustain a veto in the Senate. So far, 30 senators, all members of the Democratic caucus, have backed the agreement, and Mr. Obama is expected to secure at least four more, enough to prevent a two-thirds majority from overriding his veto.
The White House is increasingly optimistic that Mr. Obama won’t have to use his veto authority by getting support from 41 Democrats in the Senate. The measure could then be blocked in the procedural vote.
“I’m hopeful that members of Congress get behind this deal,” Mr. Obama said in an interview Friday with American Jewish leaders. “And I promise you that nobody’s going to have a bigger stake in implementing it effectively than me.”
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) this week acknowledged the administration’s momentum in getting enough votes to block an override. However, he said, passage of the disapproval resolution would mark an important victory by broadcasting congressional doubts over the deal.
Still, with dwindling chances of derailing the deal, opponents are turning their sights to other steps they can take to pressure Iran and dissuade foreign firms from investing there. One focus is expected to be the 20-year-old Iran Sanctions Act, which expires at the end of 2016. The law prohibits investments of more than $20 million by U.S. or foreign firms in much of Iran’s energy industry.
Sens. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) and Bob Menendez (D., N.J.) are pushing a bill to extend the law for an additional decade. They have said such sanctions must be reauthorized to ensure that Iran can be punished if it cheats on the nuclear deal or commits other violations.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), a presidential candidate, and other Republican lawmakers are also drafting bills to impose new sanctions on the Revolutionary Guards, or IRGC.
“I’m trying to make sure Americans aren’t blown up, we’re trying to prevent the IRGC and the Quds Force from their external terror plots,” said Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.).
U.S. officials believe the IRGC is the single most dominant entity in the Iranian economy, with vast holdings in real estate and construction, telecommunications and energy. Maintaining, or increasing, sanctions on the unit could stave off a flood of new investment into Iran after the nuclear agreement goes into place.
“You want to raise the risk calculus for companies considering doing business in Iran,” said Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which advises Congress on Iran sanctions and opposes the nuclear deal. “The IRGC will be a central economic player going forward.”
Senior Obama administration officials said the president would block Congress from taking certain steps on sanctions that the White House believes would violate the Iran agreement.
Specifically, the White House intends to push back against lawmakers taking sanctions that were implemented in response to Iran’s nuclear program and reimposing them under other qualifications, such as Tehran’s support for terrorism or human-rights concerns.
The administration wouldn’t say if it would support or block the renewal of the Iran Sanctions Act, arguing such a debate is a year off and “premature.” Administration officials also said the White House didn’t believe new penalties on the IRGC needed to be imposed, as numerous sanctions are already on the books.
“The IRGC isn’t gaining relief from this deal.… This goes for their commanders and their business networks,” said a senior administration official.
The Clinton campaign on Friday reaffirmed comments Mrs. Clinton made last month about the need to continue pressuring Iran financially. A spokesman also said the candidate was open to imposing new sanctions on the IRGC.
“Sanctions for terrorism, and other non-nuclear sanctions, must remain a key part of our strategy and must be vigorously enforced,” she said in July.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), one of the loudest critics of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy, has also suggested withholding U.S. funds for the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog that is responsible for monitoring compliance with the Iranian deal. Such a move faces bipartisan skepticism, however, since the IAEA is involved in the enforcement of many other agreements.
Lawmakers may also opt to boost aid to Israel to help bolster its defenses against Iran. “There’s general agreement that our support for Israel not only needs to remain strong, but there may be additional components to that,” said Rep. David Price (D., N.C.), who is helping Democratic leaders win support for the deal in the House.
Write to Kristina Peterson at kristina.peterson@wsj.com and Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com
Comments are closed.
