It’s been apparent for months that Congressional opponents of the Iran nuclear deal didn’t have the votes to override President’s Obama’s veto of a resolution of disapproval of the pact. But it’s only been in the last couple of weeks that the White House’s campaign of pressure on Democrats might result in there being enough votes to sustain a filibuster of such a measure. Either way, the deal is almost certain to survive — albeit by the backward approval process that a credulous Senator Bob Corker was suckered into accepting by the Democrats earlier this year rather than a constitutional treaty ratification that it could never get through. That leaves those worried about the immediate after-shocks of the deal’s triumph thinking that there must be another way to stop or at to at least slow the president’s push for détente with the Islamist regime. As the Wall Street Journal reports, the route they’ve chosen is an attempt to stage a fight over the renewal of the act that mandates sanctions on Iran for its nuclear violations and its support of terrorism. If the administration has the votes to stuff the nuclear deal down the throats of a wary American public and Congress, it surely has enough to stop this measure. But by forcing the country to discuss Tehran’s role as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, the plan has merit.
The administration’s arguments against an effort to renew the Iran Sanctions Act starts with the fact that it doesn’t expire until the end of 2016. To speak of it being premature on those grounds doesn’t take into account the dysfunctional nature of Congress. But the real reason is that the White House has no interest in renewing that act at any point in the future but especially not now when their entente with Tehran is still in its infancy.
The deal with Iran left the door wide open for the regime to either cheat their way to a bomb or to get one by waiting patiently for it to start expiring in a decade. But just as damning was the administration’s decision to ignore every other dangerous aspect of Iranian behavior. The pact makes no mention of Iran’s support for terrorism as well as its ballistic missile program, which shows the target of their nuclear program is the U.S. and Europe and not just Israel. But by renewing the act, the deal’s critics hope to not only draw attention to Tehran’s funding of Hamas and Hezbollah. They also hope to get back some of the economic leverage over Iran that Obama discarded during the course of the negotiations.
One of the talking points used about the deal by administration apologists, including Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, was the conceit that existing penalties on Iranians accused of terrorism would not be lifted when the nuclear sanctions were tossed out. This was always a subterfuge since money is fungible. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is not just a military organization and the funnel for terror funding but also a mainstay of the Iranian economy. The IRGC have their fingers in just about every Iranian pie and they will, despite Obama’s disclaimers, profit greatly from the nuclear agreement along with everyone else in Tehran.
The administration is no more enthusiastic about merely keeping the sanctions law on the books than it was for the measures that created the economic pressure that brought Iran to the negotiating table. It will claim, as it did when Congress tried to toughen the sanctions already on the books that doing so is provocative and breaking faith with their negotiating partners. That’s especially true since the one thing that we know the deal will accomplish will be to enrich Iran with $100 billion in unfrozen funds and countless billions more in the profits it will reap from Western business partners once sanctions are lifted.
But what a debate about sanctions renewal will make clear to the country is that this administration isn’t so much worried about Iranian sensibilities as they lack all interest in holding the regime accountable.
After all, we know right now that Iran is smuggling funds and equipment into Gaza to help Hamas build new terror tunnels along the border with Israel aimed at facilitating kidnapping and murder. And we also know that they use Hezbollah as an auxiliary armed force both to maintain a northern front against Israel and to prop up their Syrian ally, dictator Bashar Assad.
These factors alone ought to justify the maintenance of sanctions on Iran no matter whether or not they cheat on a nuclear deal with the sort of loose inspections process (self-inspecting at Parchin and 24-day notice of inspections elsewhere). But that is precisely the sort of discussion that the administration wants. Why? Because the real point of the deal — made clear in many statements by the president — is to allow Iran to “get right with the world.” The goal here is not to isolate Iran and to make it impossible for it to export terror but to make them our partners. As Iran’s leaders who encourage “Death to America” chants by their followers have indicated, that’s a fool’s errand. Yet that is the reason why we have a deal with them in the first place and why this administration will fight tooth and nail against any effort to renew sanctions on Iran.
Some will also accuse the deal’s opponents of playing politics with this effort. That isn’t entirely wrong. Republicans want to put liberal Democrats who claim to be tough on Iran and supporters of Israel, on the spot about a measure that would hold Iran accountable for its funding of Hamas and Hezbollah. But unlike with their votes on the nuclear deal, there will be no cover from the White House that will enable them to complain they are doing the right thing for U.S. security and the alliance with Israel.
No, if Democrats oppose the renewal of the sanctions act they are putting themselves on record on an issue where there isn’t much wiggle room. Those who can’t be persuaded to vote for a measure that penalizes Iran for its terrorist activities will be forced to expose themselves to the charge that they prefer to mollify the ayatollahs to stopping the regime from helping to murder Israelis.
Is that fair? Actually, yes, it is.
If Democrats want to commit themselves to détente with Iran they can certainly do so. But they can’t oppose terror sanctions renewal without placing themselves in a camp that views Iran’s feelings as more worthy of consideration than the lives of terror victims. If sanctions renewal fails, that is an issue that ought to be hung around the necks of those members of Congress that have chosen to do the president’s dirty work.
