White House Warns Congress Opposing Iran Deal Could Lead to War
إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربيةThe White House warned U.S. lawmakers Tuesday that tightening sanctions on Iran could box America into a "march to war" and derail a diplomatic push to limit Tehran's atomic program.
The warning marked a significant toughening of President Barack Obama's stance towards skeptical U.S. lawmakers as he prepares to resume high-stakes nuclear diplomacy with Iran later this month.
"The American people do not want a march to war," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.
Obama has vowed he will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, but last week intense negotiations between Iran and six world powers failed to reach an interim deal to halt its program.
This setback fueled skepticism in Congress about the administration's plans to freeze planned new economic sanctions.
Secretary of State John Kerry heads to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to make the case for continued diplomacy.
Meanwhile, the White House prepared the ground by warning that limiting Obama's scope to negotiate could leave him little option but a recourse to military force against Tehran's nuclear operations.
Key senators, some responding to Israel's denunciation of the proposed agreement, are framing plans to stiffen sanctions or to curtail Obama's power to ease current measures.
But the White House implicitly warned that new sanctions could embolden hardliners in Tehran who oppose talks, and force Obama to begin preparations for military action.
Carney said Americans "justifiably and understandably prefer a peaceful solution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and this agreement, if it's achieved, has the potential to do that.
"The alternative is military action," Carney warned.
"It is important to understand that if pursuing a resolution diplomatically is disallowed or ruled out, what options then do we and our allies have to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon?"
White House aides privately say that once war-weary Americans understand the alternative to a deal with Iran means another Middle East conflict, they will will warm to Obama's approach.
Officials have also warned a hardline stance by Congress would strengthen hardliners in Iran opposed to dialogue between new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's envoys and Washington.
Kerry will take the administration's position directly to the Senate Banking Committee, which is mulling a new sanctions package.
"The secretary will be clear that putting new sanctions in place would be a mistake," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.
"What we are asking for right now is a pause, a temporary pause in sanctions," she told reporters. "We are not rolling them back."
The United States and other western nations believe Iran is covertly trying to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies.
The House of Representatives has already passed a bill hardening up the sanctions, but the Senate agreed to delay further action to allow diplomacy a chance to succeed.
Both Republicans and Democrats have grown increasingly skeptical.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Robert Menendez said in a USA Today op-ed that new sanctions are a "necessary insurance policy" to ensure Iran negotiates in good faith.
"We cannot substitute wild-eyed hope for clear-eyed pragmatism given Iran's record of deception," he said.
Amnd he branded it "incompatible" for Tehran to be pursue talks while installing centrifuges and developing a heavy-water reactor.
"Tougher sanctions will serve as an incentive for Iran to verifiably dismantle its nuclear weapons program. When Iran complies, sanctions can be unwound and economic relief will follow," he said.
An aide to Banking Committee chairman Tim Johnson said the senator "will not make a decision on additional sanctions until he has had a chance to consult with his colleagues following the briefing" by Kerry on Wednesday.
The committee's top Republican, Senator Mike Crapo, has said he wants to "move ahead expeditiously" with a new sanctions regime.
"I don't see how we should adjust our sanctions policy before there is any progress on the negotiation," he told Politico last week.
Colin Kahl, director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, said Congress was warming to the idea that sanctions pressure got Iran to the negotiating table and "more pressure will get them over the goal line."
But Kahl told reporters that "Congress should be mindful... of doing things that would arm hardliners with the argument that the West isn't serious" about engaging Iran diplomatically over its nuclear program.
Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, agreed, saying new sanctions could seriously limit Rouhani's ability to maintain his "soft position" on the negotiations.
"The hardliners are waiting to destroy him," Parsi said.
Negotiators "need to strike a deal before the Congress comes out and essentially closes the window of diplomacy."
USA need to putt there money where there mouth is. they did not attack syria, now they are speaking of iran ? haha
Unfortunately, Obama may be a very good lawyer but a leader he is not. In the latest round of the Geneva talks between P5+1 and Iran he was willing to accept a deal that does not include Iran's handing over of its 20% enriched Uranium and does not include a freeze to the Arak Plutonium reactor's construction.
Without those two conditions any six month deal to freeze Iran's nuclear activities is a bad deal. The French were correct in refusing it as they are the best positioned to make such a judgement based on their history of expertise in that area vis Iran's nuclear capabilities.
Yalla nuclear Iran, and then nuclear Saudi Arabia, Qatar, you name it. We already have Pakistan. Good way to shave off the population in the Middle East.
@-mr.black
I don't put much faith in that Israeli website because it is even to the right of Likud and Netanyahu. They make up stories most of the time and their analyses is completely self serving to their hard line ideology.
A better source would be something like ForeignPolicy site which presents a more balanced approach even if sometimes it too is self serving. Understand I am always skeptical of all media running stories to support their point of view. That is why I read many different sites and then form my opinions. I find the following URL closer to the truth:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/11/10/how-france-scuttled-the-iran-deal-last-minute
Here is another URL to an article that I think better describes US Iranian latest tango and goals:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/us-iran-talks-ideology-and-necessity?utm_source
@-mr.black
In the end, self interests of both the US and Iran dictate an accommodation between their two countries. Meanwhile, each side will jockey to get the better part of the deal. Leaving the Arak reactor and the 20% enriched Uranium off the table in this latest deal is an unforgivable negotiation blunder on the part of the Obama's US rushing head on to score some points with the American public to shore up Obama's job approval rating which lately have dipped below 39%.
In that light, the French were absolutely astute to refuse the deal even at the risk of coming across as spoilers. A deal that includes freezing the Arak reactor and tackles the 20% enriched Uranium would be one worth signing.
let them bomb each other... who cares, we r not iranians, israelis or anything else. it's none of our business.
The US Congress and its masters in Israel are so blind that they cannot see.
The US, they demand must up the ante on sanctions as a prelude to negotiations. That is a valid negotiation strategy given that we are giving up sanctions to get movement from Iran on its nuclear program.
When Iran ups the ante on its nuclear program, for the very same reason, following the same negotiation strategy, since it is the nuclear program that they must give on, the hardliners here call it a sign of insincerity. So guess what, the hardliners in Iran call our move the same thing and so negotiations do not happen from mutual mistrust over the mirrored negotiating strategy. Netanyhu must be happy to have foiled peaceful negotiations again.