OR-Sen: Jeff Merkley (D) Speaks Out Against New Sanctions On Iran

DailyKos:

Glad to hear: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon has been getting a question from constituents: does he support holding a vote on the bill to impose new sanctions on Iran that’s being championed by some Senate Dems and Republicans? The question in part is fueled by lobbying from outside groups on both sides of the issue. Merkley has now responded with a letter to constituents in which he comes out against holding a vote on the sanctions bill right now. Here’s the key quote from the letter, which was passed along by a source: At this time I do not support additional sanctions legislation because I share the views of many foreign policy experts that it could undermine the ongoing negotiations and weaken our multinational coalition, ultimately making less likely our goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Merkley’s opposition in particular suggests how this debate may unfold going forward. With around 30 Senate Democrats remaining quiet on the vote, it may require questions from constituents to get them to declare their positions. Merkley’s caution — and the silence among Dems in general — underscores how carefully Dems are approaching the domestic politics of engagement with Iran right now. This, even though majorities support the nuclear deal with Iran and even though Obama has asked Democrats for the room to make negotiations work. As Ron Fournier put it: “you’d expect fellow Democrats to give him the benefit of the doubt.” The current count right now is that 58 or 59 Senators — including 16 Dems — support the bill, putting it within range of passing and even overriding a presidential veto. On the other side, 10 Dem committee chairs have come out against it, and Harry Reid is said to be holding off a vote on it. One question right now is what to make of the silence among Democrats who have not declared a position. Some, such as Peter Beinart, argue that the lack of pressure on Senators to take a public position might end up making it more likely that such a bill passes. - Washington Post, 1/14/14

Senator Carl Levin (D. MI), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is also a vocal opponent of the Iran Sanctions bill.  Senator Chris Murphy (D. CT) has also recently come out in opposition to the bill.  Here's a little more info: http://www.nytimes.com/...

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. - New York Times, 1/13/14

President Obama is meeting with Senate Democrats tomorrow and Iran will be one of the topics he will be bringing up: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Officials say the meeting at the White House will be a chance for the president and lawmakers to talk about priorities for 2014. The meeting comes as the White House is pressing members of the president's party to hold off on a bill that would ratchet up sanctions on Iran. Obama has warned that the bill could upend negotiations with Iran on a nuclear deal. - Huffington Post, 1/13/14

The big question is will the Senate have a veto proof majority to pass the Iran Sanctions bill?  Right now, it looks unlikely: http://www.reuters.com/...

President Barack Obama is more likely to win his battle with the U.S. Congress to keep new sanctions on Iran at bay now that world powers and Tehran have made a new advance in talks to curb the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. Despite strong support for a bill in the Senate to slap new sanctions on the Islamic Republic, analysts, lawmakers and congressional aides said on Monday that the agreement to begin implementing a nuclear deal on January 20 makes it harder for sanctions supporters to attract more backers. Sixteen of Obama's fellow Democrats are among the co-sponsors of the measure requiring further cuts in Iran's oil exports if Tehran backs away from the interim agreement, despite Iran warning that it would back away from the negotiating table if any new sanctions measure passed. The current list of supporters is close to the 60 needed to pass most legislation in the 100-member Senate. But 67 votes would be required to overcome a veto, which Obama has threatened as he tries to reach a wider agreement with Iran to prevent it from developing an atomic bomb. "The prospects for a diplomatic solution could implode if Iran leaves the table or if Iran responds with their own provocative actions," said Colin Kahl, who served as a Middle East expert at the Pentagon until 2011 and now teaches security studies at Georgetown University. "Even if neither happens, Iran's moderate negotiators would likely harden their negotiating positions in the next phase to guard their right flank at home against inevitable charges of American 'bad faith,' making a final compromise harder to achieve," he said. - Reuters, 1/13/14

Of course I encourage you all to keep up the pressure on the Senate and urge them to give diplomacy a chance.  You can do so here: http://campaigns.dailykos.com/... And while you're at it, how about thanking Merkley for speaking out in support of diplomacy by donating to his 2014 re-election campaign:

http://www.jeffmerkley.com/

Read the full article here. Discuss below.

connect with blueoregon