The Cable

Could the House's New Iran Sanctions Actually Help Forge a Nuclear Deal?

To the dismay of liberal Democrats, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a new round of sanctions against Iran on Wednesday just as newly-elected President Hassan Rouhani prepares to take office.

In a 400-20 landslide vote, lawmakers passed the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act, which would compel countries currently purchasing crude oil from Iran to reduce their combined purchases by a total of 1 million barrels per day within a year. It also further penalizes individuals who engage in significant commercial trade with Iran.

Given Rouhani's reputation as a relative moderate who campaigned on engagement with the West, a cohort of liberal Democrats sought to delay the vote as not to get off on the wrong foot with Rouhani.

But Omid Memarian, an Iranian analyst who has interviewed a number of officials in Rouhani's inner-circle, tells The Cable that the sanctions could have a counterintuitive effect.

"It might seem ironic, but the new sanctions could play into Rouhani's hand," he said. "The sanctions are hurting the Iranian people and they are the ones who suffer the most, but if Rouhani wants to make a step and stand up against hardliners who are delusional about the country's dire condition, both economically and politically, this public pressure helps him to do something meaningful and sell it to the Iranian leadership."

It's an interesting argument, but it wasn't taken up by either side in the heated floor debate on Wednesday. 

"This bill empowers the very hardliners that are the problem," said Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) as he urged fellow lawmakers to reject the bill. "This is the best opportunity we've had in the last eight years. Why throw that away?"

Those remarks were countered by Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), the committee's ranking member, who both lobbied aggressively for the bill.

"Iran may have a new president, but its march toward a nuclear program continues,"  said Royce. "The economic and political pressure on Tehran must be ratcheted-up."

"If President Rouhani truly has the will and authority to make a bold gesture on Iran's nuclear program - such as suspending enrichment -- he has a small window of opportunity before this bill becomes law," added Engel. "I think all of us would welcome such a gesture, but until that point we will continue to pursue a path of diplomatic pressure on the Iranian regime."

Expert views are somewhat muddled on the potential damage the House vote could have on the Obama administration's September talks with Iran. Former U.S. ambassadors Thomas Pickering and William Luers have advised against a rush to add more sanctions. Former U.S. Central Command chief  Gen. Joseph Hoar also said the vote "would send all the wrong signals." 

But Memarian isn't alone in believing that increased U.S. sanctions, or at least the threat of increased sanctions, could benefit Rouhani. "Rouhani's main theme in his campaign was that I am a better diplomat so I can negotiate better and lift the sanctions," Mehdi Khalaji, a senior research fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told The Cable. "I think continuation of pressure on Iran will help Rouhani to remain relevant."

Of course, the secretive and powerful Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has the last say on Iran's nuclear program, making it difficult for anyone to know for sure how sanctions might play internally. Certainly, liberal Democrats such as Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, who gathered signatures this week to try to convince House Speaker John Boehner to delay the vote, feel differently. "A diplomatic solution remains the best possible means for ensuring that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon," wrote Ellison, in a letter signed by 16 other members of Congress. "The House of Representatives should not preempt a potential opportunity to secure such an outcome with another sanctions bill."

The State Department, meanwhile, wanted no part of the debate, opting to stand on the sidelines. "I'm not going to take a position on the legislation," State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said on Wednesday. "I think we've sent that message clearly from this podium and elsewhere in the government that we're ready to sit down and talk with Iran ... I'm not going to comment on the effects of this legislation specifically."

Ultimately, opponents of the bill didn't stand a chance, as moderate to liberal Democrats from Engel to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi advocated aggressively for the bill.

The Cable

Republicans Stiff-Arm Rand, Side with Dems on Egypt Aid

Republicans overwhelmingly united with Democrats on Wednesday to continue funding aid to Egypt, despite U.S. law requiring a suspension of aid to countries that undergo a military coup.

In a 86-13 vote, the Senate moved to table an amendment by Sen. Rand Paul that would've redirected $1.5 billion in aid to bridge construction and repair in the United States and suspend further aid to Egypt until the country holds elections.

Despite the landslide vote, the issue prompted a heated debate on the Senate floor with Republican senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Bob Corker lashing out at Paul for adding the amendment to a transportation and urban development appropriations bill.

"It would be a terrific mistake for the United States to send a message to Egypt: you're on your own," McCain said on the Senate floor. "I urge my colleagues to vote to table the Paul amendment." 

Paul punched back, noting that the Foreign Assistance Act, first enacted in 1961, requires a suspension of foreign aid to any country that undergoes a coup. "How do we lead by example when we're not going to obey our own laws?" Paul inquired. "When the president refuses to acknowledge that it's a coup ... Americans should be outraged and insulted by such blatant shirking of the law. Either we're a nation of laws or we're not."

The remarks seemed to cause certain lawmakers to blink, if only slightly.

"Yeah, it probably fits the definition of a coup," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) before noting that the U.S. could simply not afford to lose its leverage with the Egyptian military. "If it's not going to be [U.S.-supplied] F-16s, you're going to find yourselves with MiG-29s coming from Russia."

"Why are we selling weapons to Egypt?" added Graham. "If we don't, someone else will." 

Inhofe joined 32 other Republicans in voting against the amendment, including Paul's rumored 2016 presidential primary rival Sen. Marco Rubio. "Our foreign aid should be restructured, not simply cancelled," said Rubio.

The timing of the vote comes as the Egyptian military continues its crackdown on the deposed Muslim Brotherhood, gunning down some 80 people in the streets of Cairo this week. Paul also used the bankruptcy of Detroit to haul out an oft-repeated Tom Friedman catchphrase about nation-building at home. "The American people don't want good money after bad shoveled and sent overseas. They want to fix some of the problems we have at home. They want to do some nation building here at home."

But the more interventionist wing of the Republican Party clearly won out on Wednesday, as senators lined up to table the amendment, noting the preference of Israelis to continue the aid, which is seen by some as a guarantor of peace between Egypt and Israel.

"I have a letter here from AIPAC. I asked them to comment," said Graham, before reading the statement aloud: "We do not support cutting off all assistance to Egypt at this time."

Paul rejected the notion that the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee speaks for the entirety of pro-Israel supporters. "There is no unified statement from the nation of Israel," he said. "If you talk to the people, the grassroots and not the so-called leadership you'll find a much different story."

The most interesting vote of the day came from the senior senator from Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who voted for the Paul amendment. A typically orthodox voter on foreign policy issues, McConnell has become less predictable as national conservative and Tea Party groups consider backing a challenger for his 2014 primary race.

It remains unclear if opponents of aid to Egypt will get a better opportunity to change the long-standing policy in the Senate. Sen. Robert Menendez , chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, promised to allow debate on issue in his committee, but Paul said he had tried and failed to raise the issue in that venue. "They don't want this debate," he said.