[The White House has cast the issue in stark terms, saying that
a vote for new sanctions would be, in effect, a “march toward war” and
challenging those lawmakers who support the bill to acknowledge publicly that
they favor military action against Iran.]
By Mark Landler and Jonathan Weisman
Sponsors of the bill, which would aim to drive Iran’s oil
exports down to zero, have secured the backing of 59 senators, putting them
within striking distance of a two-thirds majority that could override Mr. Obama’s
threatened veto. Republicans overwhelmingly support the bill. So far 16
Democrats have broken with the president, and the bill’s sponsors hope to get
more.
The struggle is casting a long shadow over the talks, which
administration officials say will be even harder than those that resulted in
the six-month interim agreement, signed Sunday,
that will temporarily freeze Iran’s nuclear program in return for limited sanctions
relief.
Iranian officials have threatened to leave the bargaining table
if the United States enacts any new sanctions during the negotiations.
The White House has cast the issue in stark terms, saying that a
vote for new sanctions would be, in effect, a “march toward war” and challenging
those lawmakers who support the bill to acknowledge publicly that they favor
military action against Iran.
“It just stands to reason if you close the diplomatic option,
you’re left with a difficult choice of waiting to see if sanctions cause Iran
to capitulate, which we don’t think will happen, or considering military
action,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser.
Yet senators from both parties angrily reject that
characterization, saying that congressional pressure to impose sanctions is
what brought Iran to the negotiating table to begin with. If anything, they
said, the West needs the specter of more sanctions as a “diplomatic insurance
policy,” in case Iran reneges on the interim deal or the talks ultimately fail.
Behind these positions is a potent mix of political calculations
in a midterm election year. Pro-Israel groups like the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee, or Aipac, have lobbied Congress to ratchet up the pressure
on Iran, and many lawmakers are convinced that Tehran is bluffing in its threat
to walk away from the talks.
The signing of the interim agreement, congressional aides said,
could cut both ways. While some senators might be more inclined to give
diplomacy a chance, others might be troubled by the terms of the six-month
deal. The full text of the agreement has not yet been released, arousing the
suspicions of critics, though the White House said on Monday that it would soon
be made available to lawmakers.
Mr. Obama and other senior officials have met repeatedly with
lawmakers to defend their diplomatic efforts and to try to stop the rush to
sanctions. They cite an intelligence assessment that sanctions could undermine
the negotiations. And they argue that Congress can always act swiftly to impose
sanctions if the talks do collapse.
“My preference is for peace and diplomacy, and this is one of
the reasons why I’ve sent the message to Congress that now is not the time for
us to impose new sanctions,” Mr. Obama said to reporters on Monday after
meeting with Spain’s prime minister, Mariano Rajoy. “Now is the time for us to
allow the diplomats and technical experts to do their work.”
Much will depend on the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of
Nevada, who has so far resisted pressure to allow a vote on a sanctions bill.
Mr. Reid is balancing a record of robust support for Israel with an equally
strong alliance with the White House. Aides say Mr. Reid will not bring a bill
to the floor before the State of the Union address on Jan. 28.
Democrats, they say, recognize the delicacy of Mr. Obama’s
signing a veto on the Iran bill, especially if Congress delivers the first veto
override of his presidency on a matter that is so clearly a presidential
prerogative. But Democrats said the current lull can hold only for a
matter of weeks, not months.
Prominent Democrats like Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, the
chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, have recently thrown
their support behind the bill. Aides say enough Senate Democrats would support
the sanctions bill to override a presidential veto, and the House probably has
a veto-proof margin as well.
The fate of the bill, some on Capitol Hill said, is likely to
rest with news from Iran. If newspapers begin running front-page articles about
a resurgent Iranian economy or news breaks of burgeoning trade between Iran and
its allies, Mr. Reid may be pressured to allow a vote. Proponents of sanctions
say there is already ample evidence of both.
“The Iranian economy has stabilized and is now starting to go on
a positive trajectory,” said Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “This is due in a significant way to
changing market sentiment.”
Reports of an oil-for-goods swap being negotiated between Iran
and Russia have prompted some Democrats to accuse Tehran of violating the terms
of the interim deal. The White House said it shared those concerns, noting that
Secretary of State John Kerry raised the matter with Russia’s foreign minister,
Sergey V. Lavrov, on Monday.
Such a deal would be “inconsistent” with the agreement and
“could potentially trigger U.S. sanctions,” said a spokeswoman for the National
Security Council, Caitlin M. Hayden.
There is also a spirited debate about whether the Senate
legislation can be reconciled with a nuclear deal. A study by the Center for
Arms Control and Non-Proliferation said the bill “moves the goal posts” by
making a deal with Iran contingent on Iran’s not launching ballistic missiles,
and requiring it to have no involvement in terrorism against the United States,
directly or through proxies.
Senator Carl Levin of
Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a vocal opponent of the
bill, said the signing of the accord strengthened his position. “It should make
it harder for people to act in a way which might undermine the chances of there
being a comprehensive agreement,” he said.
As the debate has intensified, some Democrats are taking umbrage
at the White House’s tone, pointing to a statement last week from a National
Security Council official that said, “If certain members of Congress want the
United States to take military action, they should be up front with the
American public and say so.”
Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of Maryland and a strong
supporter of the legislation, bristled at the White House’s pressure,
especially its “march to war” language. “I think they should regret using that
language,” he said. “The bad actor is Iran.”
