Thursday, February 6, 2014

Rand Paul Issues Warning Letter to Obama on Lifting Sanctions Against Iran

Some libertarian. Rand Paul sent the following letter to President Obama (my highlights) In it, he warns Obama against lifting certain sanctions against Iran.

February 6, 2014

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20502

Dear President Obama,

I write today to follow up on a question I posed to Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Wendy Sherman, during the February 4, 2014, hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, entitled “Current Status of Iran Negotiations.”

During the course of that hearing, I asked Under Secretary Sherman whether the Administration felt bound to comply with the existing sanctions laws, particularly the sanctions laid out in the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), and the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (ITRA).  Under Secretary Sherman answered in the affirmative.

As you are aware, our existing sanctions on Iran are triggered by both statutory and executive authority. While I respect your authority regarding those sanctions lawfully initiated by Executive Order pursuant to legal authority, I would urge your Administration to use caution as you negotiate over sanctions that have been applied statutorily – that is, passed by Congress, and signed into law by the President of the United States.

In addition to the many sanctions laws in statute, both CISADA and ITRA outline specific termination criteria that bind any President seeking to undo the sanctions therein. Specifically, CISADA, as modified by ITRA, only allows for termination of sanctions once Iran has verifiably dismantled its military-nuclear, biological, chemical, ballistic missile and ballistic missile launch technology programs – in addition to Iran no longer acting as a state sponsor of terrorism. Other statutes, like the Central Bank of Iran sanctions enacted as part of the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, have no termination criteria and can only be lifted by congressional repeal. While the statutes do contain national security waivers that allow for a temporary suspension of these sanctions, the presence of these exacting termination criteria make clear that the intent of Congress was not simply to allow the President to waive all the sanctions in perpetuity at his behest.

Like you, I am hopeful a peaceful resolution can be reached. However, in the course of those negotiations, it is both my hope and expectation that the Congress will continue its role as an integral participant in our foreign policy toward Iran. I further expect that you will abide by the intent of the laws you signed, and not lift any sanctions for which termination criteria have not been met. I would remind you that it was your Administration that not only signed CISADA into law, but strengthened its force with the passage of ITRA.

On a foreign policy issue of this magnitude, it is my strong belief that any further agreement – be it interim or final – that lifts statutory sanctions on Iran should require approval by the Congress before taking effect. Please let me know if it is your intent to seek this approval for any subsequent interim or final deal.

I look forward to your prompt reply.


Rand Paul, M.D.
United States Senator

Cc:       Secretary of State John Kerry
            Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman
            Chairman Robert Menendez
            Ranking Member Bob Corker


  1. more grandstanding by the Randroid and his buddies from AIPAC's pocket

  2. This man is owned body and soul by the Israeli Likud party and his apologists on this or any other website can deny it all they like, but the bottom line is "war is the health of the state". The sanctions on Iran are a overt act of war and Rand is all too willing to drop his affable pantomime when he needs to show that his ultimate fealty is not to the American people but the fascist state of Israel. Rand is "playing the game" his sycophantic followers will explain, and what will his constituents win other than economic devastation and the empty wallets as gasoline hits $12 dollars a gallon as the Straights of Hormuz slams shut.

    It is time for his willfully ignorant faithful to wake up and smell the stench of betrayal because this man has now unveiled his dark nature as a blood lusting neocon. Oh, and I hope these fools realize that war with Iran will be used as the cover for nationwide martial law and the death of the 2nd Amendment.

  3. Rand, are you really so fucking stupid that you actually believe the BS about Iran having or going to have nuclear weapons? Don't you remember what happened with Iraq? Moron.

  4. woah the woah,,, ther now ccommenters and RW

    LISTEN, Rand is right. BIG TIME.

    Congress needs control over legislation, not the executive, and each highlighted section says as much. Ron would even approve of what's more important than content, procedure. Procedure of the State and congressional sovereignty over the laws that govern the people of their States. While Rand surely finds withholding certain metals, fx liquidity, low rates, and some semblance of disposable income in rial terms (as food prices and intermediate goods spiked), pragmatic not Rothbardian as a politician if he votes for sanctions we shall see, but at this point he's in the green on THIS.

    (and OT, wtf on CVS let them not cell tobacco, the knock-on is good for small biz, if u disliek the politics of it / cater to those with any disposable income for the retention of premium pricing)

    1. And so it is shown that you are not looking at things from the perspective of peace, liberty or respecting the NAP, but from the perspective of: 'how right is Rand Paul from the point of view of the LAW or procedures of the state?'

      Libertarians should not give a damn about what the state's law says. They don't care what the law says about gun control, drugs or the FCC either, but when it's about Obama/Rand suddenly Rand is right because "it's the LAW", even though Obama may lift unlibertarian sanctions and Rand seems to oppose it.

      This separates the libertarians from the Rand sycophants whose views on what's right is completely skewed.

      Quite frankly, opinions like the one above is why nobody should take Rand apologists seriously again. They don't argue from a "what's the libertarian thing to do" point of view. They are arguing from a "is Rand Paul right according to the state's law" point of view.

      "Ron would even approve of what's more important than content, procedure. Procedure of the State and congressional sovereignty over the laws that govern the people of their States."

      If Ron would approve of that, then he would be WRONG!!! But in this cult of personality around the Pauls, i'd expect nothing less than a way of thinking that says "if a Paul does it, it's right."
      And if you think procedures of the state are more important than content, then you're a statist.

  5. To all the ignorant Rand sycophants who hypocritically use Rothbards defense of voting for gradualists who move the cause of liberty forward:

    If Obama uses whatever power for a purpose of PEACE (aka lifting sanctions) or liberty, no libertarian should ever oppose that, even if it breaks the state's law. Libertarians don't care about the state's law, unless the law serves libertarian purposes.
    For Rand Paul to oppose the lifting of sanctions for any non-libertarian reasons (such as: the STATE's NAP violating law forbids it), is to completely counter to what Murray Rothbard meant when he said libertarians can vote for someone who at least moves liberty and peace into the right direction.

    So from now on, you hypocrites can stop invoking Murray Rothbards name as an excuse to vote for Rand Paul.
    Anyone who supports Rand on this can call himself a Republican, a conservative, a constitutionalist, but NOT a libertarian. You are just opposing Obama and supporting Rand Paul for its own sake, but not at all looking at things from the NAP perspective like libertarians should.

    1. "If Obama uses whatever power for a purpose of PEACE (aka lifting sanctions) or liberty, no libertarian should ever oppose that, even if it breaks the state's law. Libertarians don't care about the state's law, unless the law serves libertarian purposes."

      Exactly. This is a pathetic showing from Rand.

  6. Rand Paul "expect[s]" Obama to abide by the law? Ha! He oughta be a comedian with jokes like that.