Obama Caves to Iran's Nuclear Blackmail

President Obama threatened in last year’s State of the Union address that he’d veto any Iran sanctions bill passed by Congress.

“For the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed,” he told the nation, “If Iran’s leaders do not seize this opportunity, then I will be the first to call for more sanctions, and stand ready to exercise all options to make sure Iran does not build a nuclear weapon.” On Tuesday, one year and two six-month extensions of negotiations later, Obama did not call for more sanctions. Instead, he issued another veto threat.

“New sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails — alienating America from its allies; and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again,” Obama said in his State of the Union address. “It doesn’t make sense. That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress.”

Obama’s defiant tone not only misrepresents the legislation being weighed by Congress, but also demonstrates how the president's dangerous diplomacy with Tehran has now given the terrorist-sponsoring theocratic regime more leverage in nuclear negotiations — which it is exerting, to great effect, against Washington.

Congress is expected to consider legislation modeled on a bipartisan bill drafted in the last Congress by Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J. Contrary to the way Obama portrayed it, the bill wouldn’t impose any new sanctions immediately. Instead, it would only impose sanctions if Iran's mullahs fail to agree to a deal by the time the current deadline expires in July.

Having this guillotine looming over Iran should be seen as a benefit to Obama and his negotiators. It would ensure that Iran knows it faces serious consequences if it drags out negotiations, which were originally supposed to last six months and are now on track to last over 18 months.

As for the negotiations, the only way they can be seen as representing “progress” is that they've helped Iran's progress with its nuclear program. To date, Iran hasn’t been willing to make a deal, even though Obama has given ground on uranium enrichment, plutonium development and missile technology. In the meantime, stringing the U.S. along has provided the regime with rich benefits. As of last October, the Congressional Research Service calculated that Iran had received $14 billion in relief to that point, and the benefits to Iran had averaged $700 million per month throughout 2014. At such a pace, by the time the July 1 deadline rolls around, the tyrants will have received an economic windfall of about $20 billion.

These diplomatic victories have increased Iran’s leverage. Iran is now dictating the terms of negotiations, as if the Islamist state, not the U.S., is the superpower. By acting out of fear that Iran might walk away from the negotiating table, Obama is sending the signal to Iran that it can now use the prospect of exiting talks to blackmail the U.S.

Today, Obama is worried about Iran walking away from talks if Congress passes legislation that actually penalizes the regime for not striking a deal. If they get away with this, what will Iran demand next? Will Iranian negotiators start threatening to walk away unless the U.S. makes other changes to its policy in the Middle East? They may as well try. Iranians can smell the desperation from Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to keep the talks going to avoid stories of another epic foreign policy failure for the administration.

The fact that Obama would be so opposed to creating a sanctions trigger also raises questions about what the administration is actually communicating to Iran. If Obama is afraid of threatening them with more sanctions, then what, exactly, are U.S. diplomats telling Iran the consequences will be if they fail to reach a deal?

It’s pretty clear what Iran gets by keeping negotiations going — economic relief as its nuclear program proceeds. What’s less clear is what the disincentive is for failing to reach an agreement. To change this dynamic, Iranians have to be put on notice that America’s patience has limits and that they cannot count on an indefinite number of extensions of talks while the government pockets sanctions relief. The ruling ayatollahs must be made to understand that the consequences that await them if they don’t abandon their nuclear program are severe.

Passing a bill with a sanctions trigger if Iran doesn’t come to terms by the deadline would put America in a stronger negotiating position. If Obama follows through on his threat to veto it, then Congress should be prepared to use its constitutional power to override him. The message should be clear: If Obama won’t stand up to Iran, Congress will.