• Inside the negotiating rooms, there’s a standoff over how to phase in the lifting of UN, American and European sanctions as Iran complies with the terms. That underscores a little-discussed but politically volatile issue for the Obama admin: how quickly Iran would see economic and tech benefits from any accord
• A suspension, and ultimate elimination, of the sanctions on oil exports and financial transactions is the key issue for President Hassan Rouhani and Zarif if they hope to sell a 10-year or longer limitation on their nuclear activity to Iranian mullahs and military leaders who have opposed the negotiations
• Leaked details of the talks are being used by opponents in Tehran, especially the Revolutionary Guard Corps, which oversees the military side of the nuclear program. They argue that by limiting Iran’s capabilities for so long, the U.S. would use an accord to thwart Iran’s emergence as the major power in the Middle East
• But any rapid lifting of sanctions – by vote of the Security Council and by President Obama – could intensify the already fierce congressional debate. Congress would ultimately need to vote to remove American sanctions, and some Republicans may balk at doing that and instead try to toughen the terms – so much so that Iran might not accept them
• Kerry has called in Energy Sec Ernest Moniz, a nuclear scientist, to bolster the argument that an accord would guarantee that, for a decade or more, the U.S. and its allies have at least a year’s warning before Iran could manufacture a bomb’s worth of weapons-grade nuclear fuel
• Israeli PM Netanyahu attempted to cancel a January briefing of U.S. senators by Israeli intel agency Mossad. The meeting eventually went ahead. Mossad told U.S. officials that a recently-floated Iran sanctions bill from Sens Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) would scuttle U.S. nuclear negotiations (Time, Bloomberg, Hill)
Kerry Slams GOP Iran Letter
• SecState John Kerry said on CBS Sunday that the GOP Iran letter “specifically inserts itself directly to the leader of another country, saying. ‘Don’t negotiate with these guys because we’re going to change this.’ which, by the way, is not only contrary to the Constitution with respect to the executive’s right to negotiate, but it is incorrect because they cannot change an executive agreement.”
• Prince Turki al-Faisal, a senior member of the Saudi royal family and the country’s former intel chief, said to the BBC, “I’ve always said whatever comes out of these talks we will want the same. So if Iran has the ability to enrich uranium to whatever level, it’s not just Saudi Arabia that’s going to ask for that.” (Hill, Politico, BBC, me)
• Cotton said Sunday on CBS that he has “no regrets” about the letter. “The alternative to a bad deal is a better deal,” he echoed Israeli PM Netanyahu. “Moreover,” Cotton said, “We have to stand up to Iran’s attempts to drive for regional dominance. They already control Tehran and, increasingly, they control Damascus and Beirut and Baghdad.” (Tehran, ya think?)
• Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on CNN, “I don’t think it