Lobbying Picks Up Over Bill to Toughen Antinuclear Sanctions Against Iran
|
Version 0 of 1. Partisans in the debate over a Senate bill that would threaten onerous new antinuclear sanctions on Iran escalated their lobbying on Tuesday, with critics submitting a letter to lawmakers signed by 62 multifaith organizations urging a delay and supporters pointing to what they called Iran’s insincerity. President Obama has said the bill, which already has strong bipartisan backing in the Senate, could sabotage the administration’s efforts to negotiate a comprehensive agreement with Iran that would ensure its nuclear activities are peaceful, resolving a prolonged dispute that has raised the possibility of another armed conflict in the Middle East. Mr. Obama has threatened a veto, but the bill may already have enough support to potentially override that, and it is unclear how long the administration can delay a vote. The bill, co-sponsored by Senator Mark S. Kirk, an Illinois Republican, and Senator Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, has acquired added significance in recent days because of a temporary agreement in the nuclear negotiations that will freeze parts of Iran’s nuclear activities for six months in return for a partial easing of economic sanctions that have been imposed by the United States and the European Union. The temporary pact, which takes effect on Monday, is meant to give negotiations for a comprehensive agreement more time. Although the Kirk-Menendez legislation’s provisions would not take effect unless those negotiations fail, critics contend it violates the temporary pact and already is threatening to sabotage the diplomacy. “By foreclosing diplomatic prospects, new sanctions would set us on a path to war,” read a letter sent Tuesday to senators as part of an effort led by the National Iranian American Council, a Washington group that opposes sanctions. “The American people have made it clear that they do not want another war in the Middle East and strongly support pursuing diplomatic prospects until they are exhausted.” The letter was signed by 61 other groups drawn from a range of religious antiwar backgrounds, including the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, Evangelicals for Social Action, the Islamic Society of North America, Jewish Voice for Peace and Veterans for Peace. Supporters of the Kirk-Menendez legislation, known as the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013, contend that its threats will pressure the Iranians to negotiate in good faith or face economic disaster, reflecting a view that Iran would not have agreed to any talks without the sanctions already imposed. Those measures have halved Iran’s oil exports, basically severed it from the global banking system, and caused inflation, joblessness and shortages in the country. Provisions in the Kirk-Menendez bill would go much further, with steps that could drive Iran’s oil exports to near zero and make any relief contingent on a complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure — something the Iranians have already rejected. Escalating an effort to portray Iran’s leaders as duplicitous, supporters of the Kirk-Menendez bill argue that the country already is feeling less pressure to negotiate. Some have taken aim at Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, an American-educated diplomat who led the successful negotiations on the temporary pact, which was finalized on Sunday between Iran and the so-called P5-plus-1 countries, the five permanent members of the Security Council — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — plus Germany. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington-based group that supports tough sanctions, criticized Mr. Zarif on Tuesday for paying respects on Monday in Beirut, Lebanon, at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh, an assassinated commander in the military wing of Hezbollah, the Shiite political organization allied with Iran. The United States and Israel consider Hezbollah a terrorist group, and the European Union has classified its military wing as a terrorist operation. Mr. Mughniyeh, killed in a 2008 car bombing that Hezbollah said was carried out by Israel, was regarded by the United States as having planned numerous attacks, including the 1983 truck bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 American service members. “Celebrating a mass-murdering terrorist is a bad choice for any foreign minister, but the decision by Tehran’s top diplomat to so brazenly honor a terrorist like Mughniyeh, who killed hundreds of Americans, within hours of inking an agreement with the U.S. and members of the P5-plus-1 sends a very negative and unmistakable signal about Iran’s true intentions,” Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said in an email. He said Mr. Zarif’s gesture should be “met with a firm Obama administration response such as new terrorism sanctions against Iran.” Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the White House’s National Security Council, also condemned Mr. Zarif’s visit. “The decision to commemorate an individual who has participated in such vicious acts, and whose organization continues to actively support terrorism worldwide, sends the wrong message and will only exacerbate tensions in the region,” Ms. Hayden said in a statement. |