Could Obama Have Gotten More From Iran With Additional, Crippling Sanctions?

WASHINGTON – Critics of the nuclear deal that major world powers struck with Iran this week have largely based their case on a counterfactual. Had President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on Iran that were more aggressive -- “crippling,” even -- then, the theory goes, he would have extracted more favorable concessions.

This argument is meant, in part, to reinforce the idea that a third option existed between the two Obama outlined -- that is, between military confrontation and the agreement that was ultimately struck. But would it actually have been practical?

According to experts in the subject, including those who worked on Iran sanctions, the answer is basically no.

There are a host of reasons why. Some of them are technical: Sanctions need to be targeted to be effective, and most of the big-ticket items had already been hit. Another reason is geopolitical: The harder the U.S. pushed for sanctions, the more it risked cracking the international support for the sanctions regime. And then there is the issue of timing. Simply put, sanctions were a card in the U.S. foreign policy deck. When Iran decided to enter negotiations for sanctions relief, the U.S. had to play that hand.

“What happens when the other side says yes?” said Joe DeThomas, who spent three years at the State Department during the Obama administration working on sanctions against both Iran and North Korea. “There were negotiating positions on the table. And when the other side comes back and says 'We are prepared to agree to that,' what kind of negotiation do you have when you say, 'Ah, no, we decided we are going to break your other leg and we are going to renege'?”

The Huffington Post spoke with DeThomas and Elizabeth Rosenberg, who served as an assistant secretary for terrorist financing and financial crimes at the Treasury Department during the Obama administration, about whether additional sanctions might have procured a better Iran deal. These interviews were conducted separately, but the questions were the same in both cases. Below is the final product, slightly edited.

 The conclusion of the Iran nuclear talks, on July 14.

How difficult would it have been to actually get tougher sanctions against Iran into place?

Elizabeth Rosenberg: Tougher sanctions require international collaboration. Right now, while there may have been an appetite among a number of policymakers in the United States for tougher sanctions, the appetite is not there among a number of really important international financial jurisdictions. And if they don’t go along, they become weak links or avenues for circumvention for Iran.

Joe DeThomas: I guess you could say, ‘Well, we could have put a full trade embargo on Iran and no oil sales. No sales of any goods of any kind. Some kind of massive economic embargo.’ I don’t know of anybody outside of Israel who would have supported that. I don’t know of any other country who would have gone willingly there.

So when you say tougher sanctions, the only way they could have been done would have been, in effect, unilateral U.S. sanctions that we leveraged the rest of the world into supporting.

Was that possible?

JD: I don’t think it would have been possible to go much farther than the sanctions that exist now without a major confrontation with another major economic player.

Why not maintain the multilateral sanctions regime and make our unilateral sanctions against Iran more aggressive?

ER: That, to me, sounds... symbolic and not necessarily economically effective. Unilateral sanctions on Iran restrict U.S. people and companies from doing business with Iranian entities. But they already can’t do business with those entities, because of the embargo we have had for decades. It is the secondary-effect sanctions that have had a huge economic impact. But imposing more secondary sanctions would come down hard on our allies, including other P5+1 negotiating partners. It wouldn’t have gone over well with them.

JD: If you want to see an example of what could happen, go back to the '90s, when we and the Europeans disagreed about U.S. unilateral sanctions on Iran, and we came very close to a U.S.-European trade war over them. And we ended up having to blink.

So we would have risked breaking up the international coalition even if we had done more unilateral sanctions?

ER: Yes.

JD: You have to draw a line at the [Hassan] Rouhani election [as president of Iran]. Once that election happened, it became clear to the Iranians that they had to do something about sanctions. So the sanctions were effective. They did their job. It persuaded the Iranians that they had to cut a deal.

Now, the question is: At the point where before the Iranians started to move, were we running up against the end of marginal utility of more sanctions? That’s hard to say. The fact of the matter is we had hit the main things.

And those were?

JD: Oil sales and the movement of money.

 President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Hassan Rouhani.

 Were there other things we could have theoretically targeted?

ER: Theoretically, you could have shut down all remaining Iranian oil exports. But in order for that to work and create more economic pressure on Iran, that means the remaining oil purchasers from Iran would have to participate. That means asking our close treaty allies -- who, by the way, are in difficult economic straits -- like Japan, South Korea, China, Turkey [and] India to participate. And the Chinese, for example, have been very clear that they are not interested in more cuts. Then you are playing a game of chicken, and it looks really bad if the U.S. can’t make good on the threat of sanctions if China decides to walk. It doesn’t just look bad -- it hurts the diplomatic-pressure tactic and it undermines the strategy.

And what happens if China does walk?

ER: The international coalition devolves. The P5+1 talks are derailed. Whether or not you can pull them back together is an open question. And in the meantime, Iran is charging towards a bomb.

So, additional sanctions could only have worked if Iran was acting belligerent and the international community agreed it needed to respond?

JD: There you have a different scenario. There you have everybody in this town and in the world saying, 'What can we do next?' That’s an alternative history. It’s not one I can examine.

Why not just let the sanctions linger a little longer before negotiating with Rouhani? 

ER: The idea you can maintain the status quo is a fallacy. These sanctions have a shelf life. They get stale. Iran is far more motivated than anyone else in the Gulf about reforming their economy, and they are very good at sophisticated barter arrangements to evade these sanctions.

They wouldn’t have been more likely to make concessions?

JD: Well, what happens when the other side says yes? You know? There were negotiating positions on the table. And when the other side comes back and says 'We are prepared to agree to that,' what kind of negotiation do you have when you say, 'Ah, no, we decided we are going to break your other leg and we are going to renege'?

So you had to move forward at that time or risk not moving forward at all?

JD: At that point you have to ask, 'Will we cut a deal or can't we?' There is an old line in arms control negotiations: Can I think of a better deal than this one? Yes. Could I have negotiated it? No.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went to the U.S. Congress to argue that more sanctions would produce a better Iran nuclear deal.

Basically what you’re saying is, everything had to align from a geopolitical sense -- not just in Iran or America, but globally?

JD: Yes, you had to have a whole series of things happen. Now I have to give credit to the people who advocated sanctions, the people on the Hill in particular who pushed the administration hard. I’m not sure how quickly the administration would have been ready to go to these really hard sanctions without the very strong momentum from the Hill.

What was the administration’s resistance?

JD: I don’t think it was resistance so much as these are the big cards to play. You are saying to yourself, ‘OK, we have to make sure we are not sanctioning ourselves, that we are sanctioning the Iranians.' And that required a lot of heavy-duty lifting.

ER: In many respects, the threat of sanctions is much more powerful than the actual execution. Because once you have done it, it is a known commodity and you can immediately think about how to circumvent them or find loopholes. Whereas the threat of sanctions can be much bigger than the actual sanction itself.

And what happens if the sanctions don’t work?

JD: Well then, you have to go to other options, don’t you? That’s the thing -- if you play your big card, you better be able to live with it.

And the big card we played couldn’t have gotten more?

ER: I think it is definitely credible to say these sanctions were imposed for nuclear-related concerns and they have successfully achieved a nuclear deal. It is too bad that this deal didn’t also speak to the variety of other concerns related to Iran. But that is not part of this.

JD: Any negotiator will walk away from the table saying, 'Was there any more toothpaste in that tube? If I had just squeezed for another five seconds, would I have gotten more toothpaste out?' You always ask yourself that. I don’t care if you’re buying a car or if you are negotiating a major arms control deal. That is always going to be a question that you probably can’t answer for years.

Source: The Huffington Post

GOP Presidential Candidates Are Really Unhappy About The Iran Deal

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) was one of many Republicans who criticized a nuclear agreement reached with Iran on Tuesday. | Scott Olson via Getty Images

WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential candidates quickly criticized the nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran on Tuesday, saying that it posed a threat to American national security and would do little to limit Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The deal between Iran and six countries, including the United States, would curbIran's nuclear program in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. It would also require the country to reduce its supply of low-enriched uranium and shut down centrifuges, significantly limiting its ability to produce a nuclear weapon for over a decade, The New York Times reported. The deal would also allow UN International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to request visits to military sites in Iran -- though those visits could be blocked, reported the Associated Press.

"The international community will be able to verify that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon," President Barack Obama said during a televised appearance at the White House early Tuesday morning.

But Republicans seeking the White House said the deal, which still needs to be approved by Congress, did not go far enough to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

“President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran will be remembered as one of America's worst diplomatic failures," Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said in a statement. "The deal allows Tehran to dismantle U.S. and international sanctions without dismantling its illicit nuclear infrastructure -- giving Iran’s nuclear weapons capability an American stamp of approval. In crafting this agreement, President Obama has abandoned the bipartisan principles that have guided our nonproliferation policy and kept the world safe from nuclear danger for decades. Instead of making the world safer, this deal will likely lead to a nuclear arms race in the world’s most dangerous region."

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) accused Obama of "negotiating from a position of weakness" and said that he did not expect the deal to be approved by Congress.

"Failure by the President to obtain congressional support will tell the Iranians and the world that this is Barack Obama's deal, not an agreement with lasting support from the United States," Rubio said. "It will then be left to the next President to return us to a position of American strength and re-impose sanctions on this despicable regime until it is truly willing to abandon its nuclear ambitions and is no longer a threat to international security.”

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said that the agreement wasn't diplomacy, but appeasement. "The nuclear agreement announced by the Obama Administration today is a dangerous, deeply flawed, and short sighted deal," he said. "Based on initial reports and analysis, it appears this agreement does not 'cut off all of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon' -- in fact, over time it paves Iran’s path to a bomb."

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) echoed the criticisms of his fellow Republicans, but also referenced Americans currently being detained in Iranian prisons.

"In his remarks this morning, the President glossed over the truth about Iran’s world-leading state-sponsorship of terrorism that is violently destabilizing the region, and would grow more deadly should the Iranians get a nuclear bomb," Cruz said in a statement.

"He failed to mention American citizens Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati and Jason Rezaian, who continue to languish in Iranian prisons, or Robert Levinson, who is still unaccounted for. For them, today is no ‘opportunity to move in a new direction,’ as the President claimed," he added.

While Republican candidates said they were committed to undoing the deal if elected president, former White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer tweeted that he doubted that would be the case.

Here's a fact: none of these GOP contenders would end this Iran Deal if they got to the White House -- wld massively damage US in the world

— Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) July 14, 2015

The deal could be a possible "death sentence" for Israel, according to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The foreign policy hawk told MSNBC on Tuesday that it was "the most dangerous, irresponsible step I have ever seen in the history of watching the Mideast. Barack Obama, John Kerry, have been dangerously naive about the Mideast in general."

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) made similar comments, saying that the deal would allow Iran to "wipe Israel off the map" and "bring death to America,"according to Reuters.

The deal is likely to lead to an arms race in the Middle East, said former Hewlett-Packard executive and Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina on CBS This Morning.

"Iran has demonstrated bad behavior for 30 years. We know they have been trying to cheat on this deal, we know they have been funding proxies with a strategic objective of destabilizing the region. We know that when sanctions will be lifted there will be more money to fund those same proxies," Fiorina said.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) tweeted that Obama had made "humiliating concessions" and "should have walked away."

However, Democratic presidential candidates were quick to express support for the deal. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Democrats on Capitol Hill that she believed the deal was "worthy of support," Reuters reported.

"This is an important step in putting the lid on Iran's nuclear program," Clinton said on Tuesday.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is seeking the Democratic nomination, called the deal a "victory."

“I congratulate President Obama, Secretary Kerry and the leaders of other major nations for producing a comprehensive agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Sanders said. "This is a victory for diplomacy over saber-rattling and could keep the United States from being drawn into another never-ending war in the Middle East. I look forward to learning more about the complex details of this agreement to make sure that it is effective and strong.”

UPDATE: 5:30 p.m. -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted on Tuesday afternoon that the deal was "unacceptable" and that he planned to vote against it. Paul argued that relief from sanctions would take place before Iran demonstrated compliance with the terms of the deal and that Iran would be left with the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon.

Source: The Huffington Post

The Iran Deal and the Prague Agenda

Pool via Getty Images

As we near what may be the endgame of the current negotiations with Iran, I am reminded of the place where President Obama announced the overarching strategy that helped produce this moment: Prague. After stating his readiness to speak to Iran in a Democratic primary debate in 2007, and following that up postelection in 2009 with a series of initial statements directed to the Iranians, the President chose the Czech capital to lay out his vision of dealing with the dangers of nuclear weapons in April 2009. That included emphasizing that Iran would not be permitted to obtain a nuclear weapon on his watch: "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons." 

As a result of that 2009 speech, the President's nuclear strategy became known as the Prague Agenda. I had the privilege to travel with President Obama back to Prague in April 2010 to witness the signing of a major accomplishment in another area under the Prague Agenda, namely the New START treaty. By the following year, April 2011, I was in Prague as U.S. Ambassador. That year, and in the each year that followed, we held an annual Prague Agenda conference to assess the steps that had been taken and the challenges that lay ahead. 

In the years since, there has been steady progress in each of the four main areas the President laid out on that spring day in Prague in 2009. New START was a step forward on his first objective, to reduce the risks posed by existing nuclear weapons. Another goal, preventing nuclear terror by safeguarding materials and improving safety, has since been the subject of a series of successful Nuclear Security Summits in Washington, Seoul and the Hague.

I saw first-hand the President's personal commitment to a third objective articulated in Prague: to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy. I was, for example, present in the Oval Office in October 2011 when the President and the Czech Prime Minister met. President Obama advocated for the use of civil nuclear power as a part of the Czech energy mix (and also to achieve energy independence from Russia). That approach has been replicated in administration policy supporting civil nuclear energy in the United States and around the world.

Now, with the possible Iran deal, progress under the Prague Agenda's final prong is in reach: holding to account a state which had violated its nuclear obligations under international treaties. I am not of the school that believes the President needs to secure an Iran deal to build his legacy. That was never the case. Having known him for almost a quarter of a century, since we were law students together, and having worked for him for six years, first in the White House and then as ambassador, I can attest that those kinds of considerations do not enter into critical decisions like this one. Even the President's strongest critics have to admit that legacy is, as a matter of logic, much less of a consideration after the recent breakthroughs on the Affordable Care Act and on Trade Promotion Authority. 

Instead, as the comprehensive nature of the Prague Agenda itself suggests, President Obama is pursuing a deal out of principle. He is acting from his conviction that a good agreement with Iran represents another step toward making the U.S., our allies, and the world safe from nuclear terror. It is that ambition that has driven the President's formulation and consistent pursuit of each of the four elements of the Prague Agenda, the obscure aspects just as much as the headline-making ones.

Of course, as the President himself has repeatedly emphasized, the deal must be a good one. That is why I recently joined a bipartisan group of experts convened by the Washington Institute for Near East Peace in signing a statement laying out criteria for what any deal with Iran must at a minimum contain in five core areas: monitoring and verification; possible military dimensions; advanced centrifuges; sanctions relief; and consequences of violations. We also agreed on the importance of complementing any agreement with a strong deterrence policy and a comprehensive regional strategy. I have been encouraged by the warm reception for our statement from all corners, and by the strong tone struck by the American negotiators in Vienna this week. They recognize that willingness to walk away is the surest path to securing a good deal. If such a deal can be struck that meets the criteria in our bipartisan statement, that will be another stride forward under the Prague Agenda -- perhaps the biggest yet. 

Source: The Huffington Post