This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/world/middleeast/house-hearing-iran-nuclear-talks-sanctions.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
U.S. and Iranian Lawmakers Look to Take Nuclear Issue Into Their Own Hands In Reprieve to Obama, Senate Democrats Agree to Wait on Iran Sanctions
(about 12 hours later)
WASHINGTON — When the House of Representatives opens hearings on Tuesday about imposing new sanctions against Iran — a step that President Obama said would undermine nuclear talks with Tehran — the Republicans seeking to hem in negotiators will have some unintended allies 6,000 miles away. WASHINGTON — Ten Senate Democrats who have advocated putting more sanctions on Iran gave the White House a two-month reprieve on Tuesday, saying they would wait until after the late-March deadline for completing the outlines of a deal to restrain Tehran’s nuclear program before voting for a bill that President Obama has said would undermine any chance of reaching an agreement.
Conservatives in the Iranian Parliament say they are working on a resolution of their own to counter the economic pressure aimed at forcing Tehran’s hand and prevent Iran’s negotiating team from agreeing to production limits on nuclear fuel. Like many in Congress, they would be happy to see the current negotiations collapse. The concession came in a letter to Mr. Obama from Senator Robert Menendez, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, who has been increasingly at odds with the White House for his strong advocacy of a bill intended to squeeze Iran’s oil revenues even harder if the nuclear negotiations do not result in an agreement. But Mr. Menendez’s letter made clear that he and the other Democrats would join Senate Republicans if a meaningful accord was not reached by March 24.
The resolutions in the United States Congress would choke off more of Iran’s oil revenue if the talks in Vienna do not end in an agreement by the end of June. The proposals in the Iranian Parliament would require Tehran to deploy centrifuges that can enrich uranium more efficiently than ever. While Secretary of State John Kerry has expressed optimism that an extension agreed upon in November would lead to a speedy agreement, talks have been largely stalemated since then, and few of Mr. Kerry’s aides now believe that deadline can be met. The ultimate deadline for the talks is the end of June, by which time the two countries are supposed to develop a detailed accord.
One measure, described with glee by a senior parliamentary official over the weekend, would increase the production of a form of the nuclear fuel that is just shy of bomb-grade material. Mr. Menendez wrote in the letter that he and the other senators “remain deeply skeptical that Iran is committed to making the concessions required to demonstrate to the world that its nuclear program is exclusively peaceful by March 24.” But he said that in deference to Mr. Obama’s fears that any new sanctions would undermine negotiations, “we will only vote for this legislation on the Senate floor if Iran fails to reach agreement on a political framework that addresses all parameters of a comprehensive agreement.”
It has become an international game of chicken, with each country taunting the other to violate the terms of a 2013 pact that established the conditions under which the nuclear talks would take place. “This deadline is the critical test of Iranian intentions,” the senator said.
The accord prohibits the West from imposing new sanctions during the talks and Iran from improving its enrichment or bomb-making capabilities. Both sides are “trying to make the other one the first to violate the rules,” one American nuclear negotiator noted recently. Other senators signing the letter included Charles E. Schumer of New York, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, usually close allies of the president.
No actual legislation has been introduced in either country. But that seems to matter little in the halls of Congress or the Iranian Parliament. This is mostly about flexing muscles and sending signals. The offer to Mr. Obama is double-edged, because it greatly reduces the chances that he can win another extension of the negotiations while keeping many of the current restrictions on Iran’s program in place. Until now, some of Mr. Obama’s current and former advisers on the Iran issue, perhaps the biggest single potential foreign policy breakthrough of his last two years in office, have argued privately that “managed irresolution” of the problem would be preferable to a breakdown in talks that could lead to a military standoff.
At least some influential Republicans seemed willing to go along with the delay, sensing that an alliance with Senate Democrats could ultimately give them more leverage over the shape of a final agreement, if there is one. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the new chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a proponent of new sanctions, said, “The last thing we need to do is pass a bill out of the U.S. Senate that is not veto-proof.”
The letter came on the same day as congressional Republicans held two hearings about the usefulness of additional sanctions as they sought ways to hem in Mr. Obama’s team of negotiators. As part of that effort, they also found some unintended allies 6,000 miles away.
In recent days, conservatives in the Iranian Parliament have said they are working on a resolution of their own to counter American pressure by binding the hands of Iran’s negotiating team and stopping them from agreeing to production limits on nuclear fuel. Like many in Congress, they would be happy to see the current negotiations collapse. In fact, their proposals would require Tehran to deploy centrifuges that can enrich uranium far more efficiently than ever.
The result of the competing resolutions in Washington and Tehran is what amounts to an international game of chicken. Each country is taunting the other to become the first to violate the terms of a 2013 pact that established the conditions under which the nuclear talks would take place. It prohibits the West from imposing new sanctions during the talks and bars Iran from improving its enrichment or bomb-making abilities.
“Congress is trying to force the administration to adopt a harder line in the negotiations,” said Edward Levine, a former senior staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.“Congress is trying to force the administration to adopt a harder line in the negotiations,” said Edward Levine, a former senior staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The Iranians, he said, “are trying something similar.”The Iranians, he said, “are trying something similar.”
In recent days, Iran’s chief negotiator, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, was ordered to explain why he took a stroll through Geneva with Secretary of State John Kerry on Jan. 14. They looked a bit friendly in the eyes of the Iranian hard-liners who suspect that Mr. Zarif — a former academic who was educated in the United States — wants a deal a bit too much. Influential Republicans, and a few Democrats, have said the same of Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama. In recent days, Iran’s chief negotiator, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, was ordered to explain why he took a stroll through Geneva with Mr. Kerry on Jan. 14. Iranian hard-liners suspect that Mr. Zarif — a former academic who was educated in the United States — wants a deal a bit too much. Influential Republicans, and a few Democrats, have said the same of Mr. Kerry and Mr. Obama.
The White House and Congress have sparred for years over whether threats of new penalties or promises to ease the crushing sanctions that are already in place would persuade Iran to sign an accord over its disputed nuclear program. Some of the experts who testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday said they did not accept the claim that new sanctions would undercut any chance to strike a deal.
Mr. Obama has said that Congress should give his negotiators room to strike an agreement in principle. Any effort to impose new sanctions, he says, will be interpreted as a sign that no Congress will ever lift the sanctions, no matter how much Iran gives up in the talks. “These would only come into effect if Iran cheats, or doesn’t make a deal,” one of the witnesses, Eric S. Edelman, the under secretary of defense in the Bush administration, said in an interview. “I’m skeptical of the argument that unless we do something for Iran, it will walk away from the table. My view is that if the supreme leader wants a deal, there will be a deal.”
Some of the experts set to testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday say they do not accept the claims against new sanctions.
“These would only come into effect if Iran cheats, or doesn’t make a deal,” said one of the witnesses, Eric S. Edelman, the under secretary of defense in the Bush administration. “I’m skeptical of the argument that unless we do something for Iran, it will walk away from the table. My view is that if the supreme leader wants a deal, there will be a deal.”
The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has publicly expressed doubts of his own, even as he has given his negotiators room to explore the possibilities.The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has publicly expressed doubts of his own, even as he has given his negotiators room to explore the possibilities.
He warned Iranians this month to prepare anew for a “resistance economy.” His comments suggested that he was bracing the public for more economic pain brought about both by sanctions and the rapid drop in oil prices, which has done more to break Iran’s budget than any penalty imposed by the West.He warned Iranians this month to prepare anew for a “resistance economy.” His comments suggested that he was bracing the public for more economic pain brought about both by sanctions and the rapid drop in oil prices, which has done more to break Iran’s budget than any penalty imposed by the West.
But it was also a reminder that any accord actually requires three agreements: between the West and the Iranians, between Mr. Zarif and Ayatollah Khamenei, and between Mr. Obama and the Republicans in the House and Senate. The Iranian threat to resume high-level enrichment, which would shorten the time it would take to build a bomb, was clearly intended by military leaders and other hard-liners as a signal to Mr. Zarif. He must come back, they are saying, with a deal that ensures Iran’s ability to hold on to much of its nuclear infrastructure — and thus the capacity to assemble a weapon if its leadership decides it needs one.
The complexity of the Zarif-Khamenei and Obama-Republican deals has become particularly evident in the past few days.
The threat to resume high-level enrichment, which would shorten the time it would take Iran to build a bomb, was clearly intended by military leaders and other hard-liners as a signal to Mr. Zarif. He must come back, they are saying, with a deal that ensures Iran’s ability to hold on to much of its nuclear infrastructure — and thus the capacity to assemble a weapon if its leadership decides it needs one.
The move in Congress is a signal to Mr. Obama that the Republican majority is preparing to judge what constitutes a good and bad deal rather than take Mr. Obama’s word for it.
The Iranian Parliament, so suspicious of its own negotiators, will doubtless demand the same.