Read on Twitter
The Biden administration is having great difficulty spinning why it is offering to lift terrorism sanctions on Iran when everyone from @BarackObama to @POTUS to @SecBlinken told the American people the US is allowed to keep terrorism sanctions on Iran during JCPOA.
The Obama White House in 2015: "Authorities will remain in place to allow the U.S. government to target Iran’s support for terrorism. For example, Executive Order 13224, a broad terrorism authority...would be retained under the JCPOA." https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/jcpoa_what_you_need_to_know.pdf
Then-Vice President Joe Biden in 2015: "Every sanction in place against any entity or individual in Iran for the support and encouragement of terrorism stays in place. Nothing changes." https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/03/remarks-vice-president-eizenstat-lecture
Tony Blinken in 2020: "[W]e will continue non-nuclear sanctions as a strong hedge against Iranian misbehavior in other areas.” https://jewishinsider.com/2020/10/tony-blinkens-biden-spiel/
Tony Blinken in 2021: "And I think there is nothing, as I see it, inconsistent [with the JCPOA] with making sure that we are doing everything possible – including the toughest possible sanctions, to deal with Iranian support for terrorism." https://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/nominations-011921
Indeed, the American people were promised from the very beginning that sanctions could be imposed for terrorism while the US participated in JCPOA. That is why Congress voted almost unanimously to impose sanctions on IRGC affiliates in 2017. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3364/all-actions?overview=closed&q=%7B%22roll-call-vote%22%3A%22all%22%7D
Yesterday, however, @USEnvoyIran claimed those terrorism sanctions were illegitimate. Malley claims sanctions imposed pursuant to EO 13224 for support to terrorism are merely "labels" done "purely for the purpose of preventing...compliance with the JCPOA." https://www.state.gov/briefing-with-senior-state-department-official-on-recent-u-s-engagement-in-vienna-regarding-the-jcpoa-2/
Today, @StateDeptSpox was asked to give one example of an entity subject to terrorism sanctions that's a "label" and somehow an illegitimate use of EO 13224 (which the Obama WH said could be used during JCPOA). He declined, knowing it's simply unspinnable. https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-april-22-2021/#post-237339-IRAN
Instead, @StateDeptSpox came up with a different argument. It's not that terrorism sanctions on Iran are merely "labels" or illegitimate; it's that they "are inconsistent with the JCPOA." Oh? This is a massive change in how the US interprets the JCPOA - in Iran's favor.
In an early 2018 oped, before Trump pulled out of JCPOA, @AmbDennisRoss & I wrote: "The sanctions relief provided under the JCPOA should not be interpreted as a blanket immunity for Iranian officials, banks & other government instrumentalities to expand their illicit activities."
"If such a person or entity is found to be connected to the Revolutionary Guard, terrorism, missile proliferation and human rights abuses, it most certainly can and should be subject to sanctions—even if sanctions for that person or entity were initially suspended by the JCPOA."
What @StateDeptSpox is saying is no, JCPOA in fact does grant blanket immunity to the Central Bank of Iran, National Iranian Oil Company, etc. to finance terrorism as much as they want. To impose terrorism sanctions on them would be inconsistent with JCPOA. That's outrageous.
It'll be up to Congress to defend the integrity of US terrorism sanctions. Same for missile sanctions and human rights sanctions. Either the US is allowed to impose non-nuclear sanctions or not. Biden officials are getting too cute by half. Time to level with the American people.
Finally, here's a fairly comprehensive list of US terrorism sanctions on Iran If you see any of these entities on the list of sanctions relief offered to Iran, the Biden administration is offering to subsidize Iran's sponsorship of terrorism. END https://www.fdd.org/2021/01/25/biden-congress-should-defend-terrorism-sanctions-imposed-on-iran/
