house Bill H.R. 4992
Should Iran’s Access to U.S. Banks and Currency Stay Cut Off Until it Stops Supporting Terrorism?
Argument in favor
Iranian banks and other entities need to stay cut off from using American banks or currency until Iran stops its ballistic missile program and abandons its support for terrorism.
07/09/2016
Sounds like a no brainier. We should not negotiate with terrorists.
···
07/10/2016
It's common sense to cut of the world leader sponsor of terrorism from this access. Iran is the root of much unrest in the Middle East.
···
07/09/2016
At the point that we have to question whether supporting terrorism is worthy of exclusion, you know we have a problem
Argument opposed
This bill would make mutual compliance with the Iran nuclear agreement less likely by continuing to prevent Iranian entities from using American banks and currency.
···
07/09/2016
Disclosure: I'm Iranian and have been exiled due to my religious believes since I've been 14. I believe the strongest weapon in our hands is to engage and include Iran in the world community. When we impose isolation countries with poor leaders tend to seek out ways to insure their relevance. However if they are engaged with the world community we would have much greater powers to influence their people and leaders.
···
07/10/2016
Which terrorists — specifically — is Iran financing? There's Hezbollah and various Iraqi Shia militias — all of which are actively fighting IS — and there's the Houthi Rebels in Yemen — who are also opposed to Ansar Al Sham and AQAP. Are any of those Iranian backed groups really more dangerous than the Sunni groups they're fighting? Specifically, is it worth the risk to the future of the relationship between the US and Iran? This doesn't punish the Iranian government so much as it punishes ordinary Iranians, and in particular cuts them off from the rest of the world, making it easier for Tehran to continue its anti-western behaviour.
···
07/10/2016
Evidently the people we elect to congress have no F----g clue about how government works. But hey stupid works for Republicans. So go ahead and waste your time and our money. Sad!
Sounds like a no brainier. We should not negotiate with terrorists.
Disclosure: I'm Iranian and have been exiled due to my religious believes since I've been 14. I believe the strongest weapon in our hands is to engage and include Iran in the world community. When we impose isolation countries with poor leaders tend to seek out ways to insure their relevance. However if they are engaged with the world community we would have much greater powers to influence their people and leaders.
Which terrorists — specifically — is Iran financing? There's Hezbollah and various Iraqi Shia militias — all of which are actively fighting IS — and there's the Houthi Rebels in Yemen — who are also opposed to Ansar Al Sham and AQAP. Are any of those Iranian backed groups really more dangerous than the Sunni groups they're fighting? Specifically, is it worth the risk to the future of the relationship between the US and Iran? This doesn't punish the Iranian government so much as it punishes ordinary Iranians, and in particular cuts them off from the rest of the world, making it easier for Tehran to continue its anti-western behaviour.
If we cut ourselves off from them, why would they listen to us? By engaging them, they can hear our desires. By giving better access to better banks, we can facilitate economic growth, lifting up the standard of living, decreasing unrest and terrorist sympathy.
Evidently the people we elect to congress have no F----g clue about how government works. But hey stupid works for Republicans. So go ahead and waste your time and our money. Sad!
Maybe we should stop punishing Iran while we excuse Saudi Arabias even more blatant terrorist connections for our own financial gain
It's common sense to cut of the world leader sponsor of terrorism from this access. Iran is the root of much unrest in the Middle East.
Should the U. S., Turkey, Syria, Russia, and all major world powers be cut off from international banks and currency, until they stop sponsoring terrorism?
The actions in this bill are already policy. Don't make foreign policy legislated stone; it needs to be flexible.
Want to create more terrorists? Keep sticking it to the people of Middle Eastern countries.
At the point that we have to question whether supporting terrorism is worthy of exclusion, you know we have a problem
Complex problems like Iran are solved through communication, not cutting them off. This sounds like another emotional backlash to the hard work our president has done to make agreements with them. Let's not move backward.
Congress does not have the authority to create foreign policy and Bill does specify specifics on the true scoop of the issue.
We should learn from past mistakes and stop assisting haters
I don't think we have any right to tell Iran how to govern their country. But in the interest of self preservation, we must take care to not sow the seeds of our own destruction! We need to use every means at our disposal to fight Islamic terrorism AND to maintain pressure on Iran to cease their efforts to add to the world's arsenals of nuclear weapons.
They must be convinced that we are not to be trifled with or bullied. We must resolve to stand firm, and THEY, on the other hand, must provide indisputable proof that they can be trusted!
Legislating foreign policy, ordinarily conducted by the president (it's in the constitution), ties the executive branch's hands in conducting foreign affairs. This is really the house republicans trying to kill the Iranian deal just to thwart the president's foreign policy. They should be ashamed, but everyone knows they're shameless.
We do illegal shit internationally, too. HELLO!!! Do you want to keep the dollar strong? Then it doesn't fucking matter who uses it. Shut the fuck up.
Until they show that they are NOT harbor ing or promoting terrorism then they should have NO access to US Banks!!
I feel this bill is necessary unless President Obama changes his mind. It's unfortunate, I think this bill shouldn't even have to exist. It's a no brainier. I understand the concern about loosing a bargaining chip with Iran. But giving them access like this with nothing in return shows weakness on our part.