Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 3460

Do the Sanctions on Iran Need to Stay In-Place Until At Least 2017?

Argument in favor

The Iran nuclear agreement is a bad deal for the U.S., and threatens to further destabilize the Middle East. Congress needs to keep sanctions in place to prevent Iran from funding terrorism or obtaining a nuclear weapon.

DonaldTrump's Opinion
···
09/11/2015
“They can do whatever they want to do... They are laughing at us right now. I would have doubled and tripled up the sanctions and I would have made a much better deal.” [cnn.com]
Like (33)
Follow
Share
Ronald's Opinion
···
09/11/2015
Expecting a terrorist state with a past of lying and deception to adhere to an agreement is daydreaming.
Like (15)
Follow
Share
John's Opinion
···
09/11/2015
President O'Bama is trying to circumvent the legislative process. This agreement with Iran is a treaty and should not be viewed as anything else. It is a terrible compromise of world security and should be defeated.
Like (5)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

If Congress prevents sanctions from being lifted on Iran, it would violate the agreement that the P5+1 reached. Iran will only abide by the deal if we do the same, and failing to do so could lead to war or cause Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

BarackObama's Opinion
···
09/11/2015
"When this agreement is implemented and... we've got inspectors on the ground and it becomes clear that Iran in fact is abiding by this agreement, then attitudes will change, because people will recognize that, in fact, whatever parade of horribles was presented in opposition have not come true." [npr.org]
Like (17)
Follow
Share
BrianDeanMSF's Opinion
···
09/11/2015
It's my understanding that this deal is essentially as good as it gets in this situation. Consider the saying, "if both sides are unhappy, you've probably found a good middle ground". I think that is the case for this deal, except that Iran is slightly unhappier than we are, but they are willing to submit to the restrictions.
Like (4)
Follow
Share
ElizabethWarren's Opinion
···
09/11/2015
“Senator Warren believes we must exhaust every effort to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy, and she does not support imposing additional sanctions through new legislation while diplomatic efforts to achieve a long-term agreement are ongoing.” [washingtonpost.com]
Like (3)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H.R. 3460?

This bill would prevent the President from waiving, suspending, reducing, or otherwise limiting sanctions that have been imposed on Iran until January 21, 2017 — at which point sanctions could be lifted to whatever extent the President at the time decides.


In the context of this legislation, sanctions are defined as those described in the relevant section of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Act (a.k.a. the Iran nuclear agreement or JCPOA), and other sanctions imposed by the U.S. related to Iran’s nuclear program. Sanctions would also cover individuals who are subject to asset freezes or travel bans.

Impact

People and organizations who would do business with Iran once sanctions are lifted, Congress, Iran, and the President.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 3460

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: This legislation is part of a three-part response to the Iran nuclear agreement after it was revealed that the IAEA and Iran had entered into side agreements that were extraneous to the JCPOA.


The IAEA often enters into side deals with countries where it is inspecting nuclear facilities to gain cooperation from host countries in exchange for maintaining a level of secrecy. The controversy stems from the fact that the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act required the President to disclose to Congress “all related materials and annexes” of the deal. Therefore, opponents view the agreement as illegitimate because the Obama administration has not been fully compliant.


Sanctions relief is anticipated to provide Iran with over $100 billion in funds that had been impounded. Given that in the past Iran has used its resources to provide military support to Hamas and Hezbollah, in addition to conducting its own operations in Iraq, there are concerns that this funding could be used for nefarious purposes.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user SaFoxy)

Official Title

To suspend until January 21, 2017, the authority of the President to waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of sanctions pursuant to an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Foreign Relations
  • The house Passed September 11th, 2015
    Roll Call Vote 247 Yea / 186 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Financial Services
      Trade
      Committee on Foreign Affairs
      Committee on Oversight and Reform
      Committee on the Judiciary
      Committee on Ways and Means
    IntroducedSeptember 9th, 2015

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    “They can do whatever they want to do... They are laughing at us right now. I would have doubled and tripled up the sanctions and I would have made a much better deal.” [cnn.com]
    Like (33)
    Follow
    Share
    "When this agreement is implemented and... we've got inspectors on the ground and it becomes clear that Iran in fact is abiding by this agreement, then attitudes will change, because people will recognize that, in fact, whatever parade of horribles was presented in opposition have not come true." [npr.org]
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    “If Iran does not live up to the agreement, sanctions may be reapplied,” Sanders said. “If Iran moves toward a nuclear weapon, all available options remain on the table. I think it is incumbent upon us, however, to give the negotiated agreement a chance to succeed.” [washingtonpost.com]
    Like (37)
    Follow
    Share
    Expecting a terrorist state with a past of lying and deception to adhere to an agreement is daydreaming.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Don't want to finance terrorism .
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    President O'Bama is trying to circumvent the legislative process. This agreement with Iran is a treaty and should not be viewed as anything else. It is a terrible compromise of world security and should be defeated.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    It's my understanding that this deal is essentially as good as it gets in this situation. Consider the saying, "if both sides are unhappy, you've probably found a good middle ground". I think that is the case for this deal, except that Iran is slightly unhappier than we are, but they are willing to submit to the restrictions.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Iran should not be rewarded for actions that have yet to be taken
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    It doesn't look like Americans know the history of western oppression of Iran. Not to mention the illusion that Iran could possibly be a threat to the U.S. or to Israel, both of who have nuclear weapons. Not to mention that Israel, unlike Iran has refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes. They need to stay in effect indefinitely
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    “Senator Warren believes we must exhaust every effort to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy, and she does not support imposing additional sanctions through new legislation while diplomatic efforts to achieve a long-term agreement are ongoing.” [washingtonpost.com]
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    If they comply with the deal then they should have them removed in accordance with the deal.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Abide by the nuclear agreement
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Forever
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    We made the agreement and we should abide with it wholly, just as we will require iras to do. We shouldn't be the first to break the agreement.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    You have to be STUPID to give IRAN ANYTHING BUT THE BOMB --no deals
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Wasn't it Reagan who said trust, but verify? Even if u don't trust Iran, the verify part still applies. All those nuclear experts/physicists have said the deal is good one for preventing a nuclear bomb from being built. Their fuel rods go from 19,000 to 5000. Their uranium stockpile is reduced 97 percent, no enrichment above 4 percent, and the Arak reactor is being reconfigured so it produces less than a kilogram of plutonium per year. And there's also the permanent intrusive inspections.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    I'm failing to understand why people think that sanctions are a just punishment for any country. It's basically an effort to strangle an economy until it's people can no longer survive. In the case of Iran they want what the rest of the world wants which is nuclear energy.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    The deal is done, although I don't agree with it we should follow what we have set in place.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Nice try republican leaders
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE