Delay Iran Sanctions
Last Sunday, Senator Bob Menendez suggested a fairly good idea for further economic sanctions on Iran. Menendez, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has come up with an answer which could possibly satisfy both sides -- those who support the diplomatic track and those who are pushing for harsher sanctions for Iran. The idea is to let the Senate go ahead and pass further sanctions, but to trigger them to the timeline of the ongoing negotiations, so that new sanctions wouldn't kick in until after the six month period of talks. If a permanent deal is struck before that time, then new sanctions (obviously) wouldn't take effect, but if no deal is reached by the deadline, then the sanctions begin automatically.
This seems like a sensible middle ground to take. It doesn't give either side everything it wants, but such is the nature of compromise. The White House doesn't want the Senate to pass any sanctions at all, and the hardliners in the Senate who aren't fans of the interim deal want to impose new sanctions immediately. Passing delayed sanctions may satisfy both sides enough to be workable, though.
The Iran hawks have made it clear that they're not fans of the interim deal already. Their position is fairly absolute: sanctions must be made more and more crippling, until Iran essentially surrenders and agrees to a deal which gives America and the world everything they've been asking for. Nothing less than such a total surrender should be agreed to, even for a short term. "The sanctions are working," they say, "so let's increase the pressure until Iran capitulates!" Incremental improvements are not acceptable.
The White House is worried that passing more sanctions (even delayed ones) will seem like bad faith to the Iranians. They are closer to a deal which resolves the nuclear problem than at any point in the last three decades, and they're nervous that the diplomatic effort could be derailed by new threats of sanctions.
But delayed sanctions could work better than either side thinks. If the Senate passed sanctions with a six-month trigger, then the White House's position in the talks would actually be strengthened. John Kerry could tell the Iranians "President Obama wants us to reach a permanent deal, but he can only hold back Congress for so long -- if a deal is not reached, then you're going to face even tougher sanctions the day after the deadline." This gives the Iranians more incentive to deal, because they'll see that the Senate has raised the stakes if no deal is struck.
The hardliners in the Senate may not be completely happy with delaying sanctions. Some senators wouldn't be completely happy unless we were actively dropping bombs on Iran, though. But delayed sanctions would very likely gain the support of more senators (than a vote on immediate sanctions would), because those who believe diplomacy should be given a chance will be able to vote on the plan with a clear conscience. After all, the sanctions wouldn't take effect until the diplomatic effort has failed. And ratcheting up the pressure may be what is needed to send a clear message to Iran that we are not interested in stalling tactics. No endless years-long talks which go nowhere and produce nothing. That's not going to happen -- because the sanctions will take place automatically.
Neither Iran nor America have much reason to trust each other -- that is the biggest obstacle a permanent deal faces. The shared past of the two countries is profoundly negative on both sides. But for the first time since the Iranian revolution, the two countries are sitting down together and trying to work out a deal. We've progressed far enough to be talking, and far enough to strike a temporary deal to allow a permanent framework to be agreed upon. Both sides will be extremely wary of such a final deal. We will insist on the strongest possible verification, and Iran will insist on joining the world's nations as a full equal rather than a pariah.
But sanctions require no trust at all. We have already shown we are fully capable and fully willing to do all we can to cripple the Iranian economy. The sanctions up to this point have worked, to put it another way, and that fact is obvious to both Iran and the rest of the world. Iran already has proof of what sanctions can accomplish, they don't have to take it on faith. And, even before the Senate acts again, if Iran doesn't strike a deal then the existing sanctions will kick back in. They know this, and they know full well what it means to their economy.
The threat of more and tighter sanctions is not an empty one. It would increase the pain, should the talks fail. It would not be an idle threat, either, if the Senate passes a bill with a hard deadline specified. As long as the Senate includes language which states that a permanent deal would defuse the sanctions, then it could work -- whether a final deal is reached or not.
Secretary of State John Kerry should be given a chance to negotiate, without being undermined by the Senate. If they passed immediate sanctions, the Senate would pull the rug out from under the diplomatic effort. But threatening future sanctions would not weaken Kerry's position, it would in fact strengthen it because it would be more incentive for the Iranians to deal. It would say to the Iranians "we're not going to wait forever," while at the same time saying "if we strike a deal, these sanctions won't happen." The compromise suggested by Bob Menendez could indeed work, and it at least deserves consideration from people on both sides of the sanctions issue.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
"The Iran hawks have made it clear that they're not fans of the interim deal already."
Some more than others. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. is advocating tactical nukes. No word if he plans to ride one down, Major Kong style.
The White House is worried that passing more sanctions (even delayed ones) will seem like bad faith to the Iranians.
The fact that the White House is afraid of showing "bad faith" to the Go To Country for world terrorism is just one more indication that Obama is truly whacked...
As I said in the previous commentary, I think this plan is a good idea..
But the White House and the Left won't go for it.
Because it gives the GOP a huge win.. Especially in 6 months down the road when the new sanctions WILL kick in...
Because I can guarantee ya'all one thing..
Iran is not negotiating in good faith.
Iran is using the North Korea path to becoming a nuclear power.
Michale
And in OTHER Foreign Policy news...
Obama kisses Chinese Ass....
http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/12/04/team_obama_changes_course_appears_to_accept_china_air_defense_zone
:^/
Hard to believe that, at one time, everyone (myself included) thought Obama's STRONG suit was foreign policy...
Michale
Michale,
We're going to have to start calling you the King of Misinformation.
Or is it just that your analytical skills are a bit lacking when it comes to US foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific, or what I like to call the Indo-Pacific region?
Do you think that China is the only one in that neighbourhood with an ADIZ? Hardly! And, they even overlap! Would you like to guess which country I'm talking about?
Now, China is the only one going so far as to demand that aircraft passing through this zone identify themselves and their itinerary. That is not acceptable.
By the way, please tell me you were kidding when you say you thought, at one time - at any time! - that foreign policy was Obama's strong suit!
Do you think that China is the only one in that neighbourhood with an ADIZ? Hardly! And, they even overlap! Would you like to guess which country I'm talking about?
Once again, you take a fact and come to a conclusion that is way out in Left Field..
The fact that China has an ADIZ is not the issue.
The fact that China just INCREASED it's ADIZ to take it into SOVEREIGN JAPANESE TERRITORY....
THAT is the issue here...
To put it into a more readily understandable context, it would be as if Russia extended it's ADIZ to cover all of Alaska or Mexico extended it's ADIZ to cover Southern California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas...
It's illegal and it's not right..
But apparently Japan now joins Israel under the Obama Bus...
To paraphrase Sheriff Brody, "We're gonna need a bigger bus"....
By the way, please tell me you were kidding when you say you thought, at one time - at any time! - that foreign policy was Obama's strong suit!
Up until Egypt and Benghazi, yea... I thought Obama had it together when it came to foreign policy..
At least by comparison to his domestic policy which well and truly sucks..
Michale
The problem with additional delayed US sanctions is that existing sanctions and upcoming negotiations are multinational. Suddenly and publicly injecting the threat of new sanctions without consultation will tend to undermine the Western Coalition, already a bit fractious, which plays into the hands of the Iranian hard liners. The perception of moving the goal posts a bit also helps Iranian hard liners.
So, in my view, delayed sanctions amount to trading off marginally more effective economic pressure for marginally more difficult negotiations.
Some threats are better delivered privately, and think this is one of them. All the benefits of the delayed sanction gambit would have been achieved by keeping the threat private, with far lower downside risk. In fact, the threat may already have been delivered privately, probably was delivered in some form, and we just don't know about it. If so, little effect one way or the other.
None of this strikes me as a game changer, but I generally prefer simplicity to complexity in negotiations. Overall rating, Meh. Given senate egos, probably inevitable, and almost certainly anticipated by the State Department.
Michale,
The point is that no one is kissing anybody else's ass.
The point is that no one is kissing anybody else's ass.
Perhaps you have another name for it?
Obama et al was rip-roaring to tell China to stuff it..
They even flew FON exercises THRU China's new ADIZ, effectively giving The People's Air Force the finger..
THEN, Obama advises civilian airlines to obey China's rules and reversed course.
"It wasn't the declaration of the ADIZ that actually was destabilizing," said Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, America's highest-ranking military officer. "It was their assertion that they would cause all aircraft entering the ADIZ to report regardless of whether they were intending to enter into the sovereign airspace of China. And that is destabilizing."
That's a change from just a few days ago, when U.S. Vice President Joe Biden demanded that China take back its declaration of the zone. And it's another demonstration that China's recent decisions have forced the United States to tread carefully. On Wednesday, Biden met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing for more than five hours, according to a senior administration official. In brief public remarks midway through the marathon session, Biden didn't mention the air defense zone at all.
Now, you might call it something different, but it's CLEARLY kissing China's arse...
You might even say there is good reason to do it and you might be right.
But it's STILL kissing China's arse...
Michale
In essence, it simply supports the theorem:
Obama has never met an ally he didn't want to throw under the bus....
Michale
Michale,
You have a very shallow perspective on foreign policy, I'm afraid to say.
Sadly, there appears to be no room for a rational, substantive discussion with you about these matters. And, I simply don't have time for this nonsense.
You have a very shallow perspective on foreign policy, I'm afraid to say.
Well, if you change "shallow" to "simple", I would agree with you wholeheartedly..
In my world, things are very black and white, right and wrong..
Sadly, there appears to be no room for a rational, substantive discussion with you about these matters. And, I simply don't have time for this nonsense.
Actually, my way IS the more rational...
None of this politically correct or "shades of gray" crap...
Just the facts, Ma'am.... :D
Michale
"There is no red man or white man. Just shades of pink..."
-Soul Man
:D
Michale
Just wanted to bring an article in The New Yorker to the attention of CW.com
Annals of Law
Our Broken Constitution
Everyone agrees that government isn’t working. Are the founders to blame?
by Jeffrey Toobin December 9, 2013
Find a copy, read it. Toobin's at his best in print.
Uh......
ANNALS OF LAWOUR BROKEN CONSTITUTIONEveryone agrees that government isn’t working. Are the founders to blame?
BY JEFFREY TOOBIN
DECEMBER 9, 2013
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/09/131209fa_fact_toobin
Apparently, Toobin is ALSO a time traveler.... :D
Michale
Unfortunately, it's a Pay Site...
While I *DO* want to read it, I just don't want to read it THAT bad... :D
Michale
That's why I didn't paste a link. It's worth a trip to the library.
That's why I didn't paste a link. It's worth a trip to the library.
What's a..... "library"???
:p
Michale
M, (17)
A free news stand.
The New Yorker posts some articles in their entirety, maybe they'll pull down the barriers a few days out. To burnish their prestige a bit more.
It's really a good piece, with examples showing how both right and left view Federal Government to have failed. Yet both sides talk about the Constitution the way fundamentalists talk about the Bible.
Jefferson wanted the Constitution to sundown at 19 years.
"Sir, we're having a problem in the cockpit."
"The cockpit!!? What is it!!!??"
"It's that little room in front of the plane, but that's not important right now."
-Airplane
:D
Michale,
Sorry ... guess I was having a moment ... of clear-headed thinking ... heh.
It's just that in your world, where your way of looking at things is the rational way, it is too easy to see things in a very distorted way ... so much so that what is perceived is actually contrary to the facts - not your facts or my facts but THE facts.
We don't get the opportunity to discuss US foreign policy around here quite as much as I would like but I'm going to take every opportunity to persuade you of the hazards of seeing too many things in a black and white, right and wrong sort of way. Granted, there are issues that are that simple but very few in the realm of foreign policy.
I too would like to see more Foreign Policy debates around here.
Not for the least of which, it's my strong suit. :D
Granted, there are issues that are that simple but very few in the realm of foreign policy.
Not really. When you get right down to it, things are usually very black and white.
It's only the diplomats and the politicians who like to inject "nuance" into the issues..
For example, the monitoring of foreign leaders communications.
Bad. No matter how you slice it, it's bad. It's bad and it's wrong..
See??
Black and white. No shades of gray whatsoever... :D
Michale
104