by Jasmin Ramsey

In a letter today, a bipartisan group of senior foreign policy luminaries urged senators not to pass new sanctions against Iran, warning that additional sanctions would jeopardize ongoing diplomatic efforts and potentially move the U.S. closer to war. The letter’s nine signers include Ryan Crocker, former [...]]]> via LobeLog

by Jasmin Ramsey

In a letter today, a bipartisan group of senior foreign policy luminaries urged senators not to pass new sanctions against Iran, warning that additional sanctions would jeopardize ongoing diplomatic efforts and potentially move the U.S. closer to war. The letter’s nine signers include Ryan Crocker, former Ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan, Daniel Kurtzer, former Ambassador to Israel and Thomas R. Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and former Ambassador to Israel, India Jordan, Russia and the United Nations. Last week another former official and prominent expert, Colin Kahl, who who served as the top Middle East policy official at the Defence Department for most of President Obama’s first term, provided an in-depth explanation for why new sanctions now will seriously endanger the diplomatic process with Iran.

The letter was delivered to the co-sponsors of the Nuclear Weapon Free Act of 2013 introduced by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL). The bill would add more sanctions on Iran and purchasers of its oil as well as position the U.S. to support Israel militarily, economically and diplomatically if they choose to take military action against Iran. The full letter is reprinted below.

Chairman Robert Menendez
United States Senate
522 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510
January 6, 2014

Dear Chairman Menendez,

We ask you and the other cosponsors of the Menendez/Kirk bill, S. 1881, to review carefully whether that legislation serves U.S. national interests and those of our friends and allies. We believe it does not for a number of important reasons.

The bill will threaten the prospects for success in the current negotiations and thus present us and our friends with a stark choice – military action or living with a nuclear Iran. A military strike would not eliminate Iran’s nuclear capacity and may result in the very thing the U.S. hopes to prevent: Iran deciding to seek nuclear weapons. Living with an Iranian nuclear weapon is exactly the outcome the U.S. seeks to avoid with international negotiations.

President Obama’s decision to test the intentions of the new government of Iran offers the best opportunity in decades to see whether there is a peaceful way to achieve all of our most important objectives. More importantly if Iran were to agree to substantial and verifiable limits on its nuclear program — which they say they are prepared to do – the world would be a safer place than if the international community were to try to achieve such objectives through war.

You and your co-sponsors contend that since sanctions brought Iran to the table to negotiate seriously, then more sanctions or legislated threats of more sanctions would make Iran’s leaders even more determined to give us what we seek. To the contrary, Iranian leaders are more likely to see such Congressional action as a violation of the spirit and perhaps the letter of the Joint Plan of Action of November 24, 2013, and to harden rather than soften their negotiating position. Already, Iranian legislators have threatened to pass a bill requiring enrichment at higher levels — beyond 20% — in response to S. 1881. This kind of tit-for-tat spiral threatens to undermine any possibility of curtailing Iran’s nuclear program.

Once the new Iranian president declared his government’s readiness to negotiate immediately and seriously a comprehensive agreement to give the international community virtually everything it seeks in return for gradual sanctions relief, the Iranians had every right to assume that the US and the other nations involved in the negotiations would proceed in good faith. Based on our experience born of years of dealings with Iran, we do not believe the Iranians will continue to negotiate under new or increased threats.

The outcome of these negotiations is by no means certain. Should the U.S. Congress decide it must unilaterally seek to add even more burdens now on this complicated and critical process, it is unlikely that the goals of our negotiations can be achieved. Moreover our other negotiating partners (UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China) would be displeased and would conclude that the US is no longer proceeding in good faith in accord with the Joint Plan of Action. This bill could lead to an unraveling of the sanctions regime that the U.S. and its partners have so patiently built.

The United States and its allies in the region would better off if relieved of the concern that Iran might acquire a nuclear weapon. Israel would no longer have to be concerned that Iran could present an existential threat and would be in a stronger position to defend itself. This is particularly true in view of the capacity for self-defense inherent in Israel’s overwhelming military power, both conventional forces and its well-known strategic capabilities.

We urge you to take a second look at this legislation, accept that you have achieved your objective of putting down a marker for Iran, but not press this bill to a vote. You do not sacrifice any of your options by doing so. Negotiators now need a chance to continue to their work. We ask that you stand up firmly for the interests of the United States, as you always have, and allow the negotiations to proceed.

Sincerely,

Ryan Crocker, former Ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan
Stephen Heintz, President, Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Daniel Kurtzer, former Ambassador to Israel
William H. Luers, former Ambassador to Venezuela and Czechoslovakia
Jessica Tuchman Mathews, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Thomas R. Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and former Ambassador to Israel, India Jordan, Russia and the United Nations
Paul Pillar, former National Intelligence Officer
Jim Walsh, Research Professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Frank G. Wisner, former Under Secretary of State for International Security Affairs and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Foreign Policy: Despite the treasury’s letter to the Senate expressing “the Administration’s strong opposition” to the proposed Menendez-Kirk amendment to a new Iran sanctions bill, it was passed in senate on Thursday with a unanimous vote. Included [...]]]> News and views related to U.S.-Iran relations from Nov. 29 – Dec. 2

Foreign Policy: Despite the treasury’s letter to the Senate expressing “the Administration’s strong opposition” to the proposed Menendez-Kirk amendment to a new Iran sanctions bill, it was passed in senate on Thursday with a unanimous vote. Included in this post by Josh Rogin is a “best-guess timeline” of the implementation of the Kirk-Menendez sanctions. Robert Mendendez also expressed his anger yesterday over the Obama administration’s criticism of measures which he claims he was encouraged to make.

Huffington Post: According to Trita Parsi, the attack against the British embassy in Tehran was not only an explicit message from the Iranians that they will not respond positively to pressure. It also signals the rise of hardline conservatives in the government who see no boundaries in their quest to undermine President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

The attack on the British embassy was not only illegal and disgraceful, it was also a sign of how statecraft in Iran has deteriorated over the past years as a result of internal bickering within the political elite. Key actors within the regime are willing to be take excessive risks on the international stage through reckless actions in order to score points in their petty domestic rivalries.

TIME: The former director of Israel’s national security council, retired Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland, tells an army radio station that the mysterious blast in Isfahan this week was “no accident”:

“There aren’t many coincidences,” he said,  ”and when there are so many events there is probably some sort of guiding hand, though perhaps it’s the hand of God.”

So given all those factors, with which many nonpartisan and military analysts agree, as well as concerns about an unintended slide from heated rhetoric to confrontation and war, why would a sober, thoughtful defense secretary go so far out of the way to insist that force is not ruled out?  Panetta said that the Administration’s goal is to force Iran to choose between a nuclear weapon and re-integration in the region and the world.  He knows that diplomacy and economics are the way to achieve that goal — and said so. The Secretary also knows that what he called Israel’s increasing isolation makes things easier for Iran.  Hence the invitation to Israel to reach out in its region and alter the dynamic. Panetta, who has developed since arriving at the Pentagon a reputation for speaking off the cuff from time to time, seemed highly calibrated throughout, which made the curtness of his last response, to the question of what Israel should do now, all the more striking: “just get to the damn table.”

Arms Control Association: The U.S. should make the “first move” to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran from becoming a reality since it is still not “imminent nor inevitable” and impose reasonable pressure while offering confidence-building measures:

Rather than being permanently discouraged by Iran’s unhelpful behavior at Istanbul, the United States and its “P5+1” partners—China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United Kingdom—should prepare for additional talks with Iran and continue to highlight constructive proposals they are prepared to discuss. This includes outlining the confidence-building steps required to ease the current sanctions regime and end Tehran’s diplomatic isolation.

Al Jazeera English: A timeline of developments surrounding Iran’s nuclear program beginning in 2002.