ICYMI: Wall Street Journal & Washington Post Endorse Kirk-Menendez Iran Sanctions Legislation

WASHINGTON – The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post editorial boards this week endorsed legislation written by U.S. Senators Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) that would impose additional sanctions on Iran if negotiators fail to reach a deal over the country’s nuclear weapons program by the June 30 deadline. The Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2015, the text of which is available here, will be introduced in the coming days. A Senate Banking Committee hearing on the legislation, originally scheduled for this week, has been rescheduled for Tuesday, January 27.

Below are excerpts from the Wall Street Journal editorial (“Obama, Congress and Iran”) published today and the Washington Post editorial (“Iran doesn’t hesitate to use a human pawn as nuclear negotiations go on”) published on Sunday.

Wall Street Journal – Review & Outlook

Obama, Congress and Iran: The President objects to support for what he claimed was his policy.

“If Iran does not fully meet its commitments during this six-month phase, we will turn off the [sanctions] relief and ratchet up the pressure.” That was President Obama in November 2013, pledging he would not allow an interim nuclear deal with Tehran to become an opportunity for the mullahs to play for time while wringing economic concessions from the West. The President’s interpretation of “six months” turns out to be as elastic as his reading of U.S. immigration law.

That became clear on Friday when Mr. Obama warned he would veto any Congressional attempt to impose sanctions on the Islamic Republic if the latest round of negotiations fail.

…

The bill that is likely to emerge after the Senate Banking Committee holds hearings Tuesday will be a revised version of last year’s bipartisan Kirk-Menendez bill, named after sponsors Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois and Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey. It would reimpose the sanctions Mr. Obama suspended when he signed the interim deal, impose visa bans and asset blocks on top Iranian officials, and further tighten oil and financial sanctions.

Passing the bill now could help persuade Iranian negotiators that they cannot string the West along indefinitely without paying a price. Would that cause Iran to walk away from negotiations? It’s a strange argument coming from an Administration that boasts that Iran agreed to the interim deal thanks to the bite of strong sanctions.

…

All of this ought to persuade waverers to back Kirk-Menendez, especially the 12 Democrats who supported the bill last year and remain in the Senate. It’s never easy to oppose the foreign policy of a sitting President from your own party, especially on a deal that Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes recently called the foreign-policy equivalent of the Affordable Care Act. Then again, Democrats might reflect on what their lockstep support for ObamaCare has done for their Senate majority.

The next two years will be full of foreign-policy dangers as adversaries seek to exploit Mr. Obama’s weakness and desire for diplomatic agreements of any kind. Passing Kirk-Menendez would at least send a signal that the American people are not as pliable and that help is on the way after 2016.

Read the entire editorial here.

Washington Post – Editorial Board

Iran doesn’t hesitate to use a human pawn as nuclear negotiations go on

AS NEGOTIATIONS with Iran on its nuclear program resumed last week , President Obama reiterated his opposition to new sanctions legislation. The legislation, which has strong bipartisan support, could “undermine the negotiations” and isolate the United States from its allies, Mr. Obama said Friday. “Just hold your fire,” he urged Congress, vowing to veto the bill if it reached him.

The logic of that argument has always been a little hard to follow, since the measure the Senate is likely to take up, sponsored by Democrat Robert Menendez (N.J.) and Republican Mark Kirk (Ill.), would mandate new sanctions only if Iran failed to accept an agreement by the June 30 deadline established in the ongoing talks. Common sense suggests the certain prospect of more punishment for an already-damaged economy would make the regime of Ali Khamenei more rather than less likely to offer the concessions necessary for a deal.

We gave Mr. Obama’s argument the benefit of the doubt when Congress first considered the legislation more than a year ago. But the president’s logic has been undercut by the manifest willingness of the Iranians to adopt their own pressure tactics — including steps that are considerably more noxious than the threat of future sanctions. On the day before talks resumed between Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif last Wednesday, Tehran announced that construction has begun on two new nuclear reactors. The next day its news agency reported that the case of Washington Post correspondent Jason Rezaian, who has been imprisoned since July 22, had been referred to the Revolutionary Court for “processing.”

…

It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that he is being used as a human pawn in the regime’s attempt to gain leverage in the negotiations.

If tactics such as that do not ruin the chance of an agreement, then neither should action by Congress.

Read the entire editorial here.