...

Q    Twenty-six senators on the Hill have introduced legislation to implement new sanctions on Iran if the interim deal is violated.  Is this something that you can live with?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me say that we’ve been in regular, very direct conversations with members of Congress on this subject, and have made very clear to them that we do not believe now is the time to pass any additional new sanctions through Congress.
 
With regards to this particular measure, we don't think it will be enacted.  We certainly don't think it should be enacted.  And the reason why it should not and does not need to be enacted is because if Iran does not comply with its obligations under the Joint Plan of Action, the preliminary agreement, or if Iran fails to reach agreement with the P5-plus-1 on the more comprehensive agreement over the course of six months, we are very confident that we can work with Congress to very quickly pass new, effective sanctions against Iran.  And it is our view that it is very important to refrain from taking an action that would potentially disrupt the opportunity here for a diplomatic resolution of this challenge.
 
And so we don't want to see actions that would proactively undermine American diplomacy, which is what we fear that actions like passing new sanctions -- no matter how they're structured -- would be received, both by our international partners and obviously by Iran.

...

Q    And another follow-up on Iran.  The Russian foreign minister said in Poland, where of course the interceptors are supposed to be located under the missile shield, that implementation of the Geneva agreement on Iran will remove the cause for construction of a missile shield in Europe.  Do you have a reaction to that comment?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I didn’t see that comment.  I mean, our position on that has not changed, and an interim agreement is not a comprehensive agreement and it is not a resolution to the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear weapons program.  But I certainly have -- there is no change in our posture with regards to a missile defense program in Europe.

...

Q    I just want to go back to Iran. You say new sanctions could undermine the negotiations on a nuclear deal.  It could blow it up.  Can you see, though, why Democratic as well as Republican senators are now saying on the Hill these sanctions would not take effect for months?  They wouldn't take effect until after talks broke down.  So how would that --
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, our view is there is no need.  It is entirely unnecessary to potentially disrupt, or derail entirely, diplomacy if the only purpose is to assert that you'll impose new sanctions later when we are 100 percent confident that if Iran were not to comply with its obligations under the preliminary agreement or were to fail to reach agreement on a comprehensive agreement, that we would be able to work with Congress to enact new sanctions with great dispatch.  And for that reason, because we have seen in Congress a very effective partner in the past in building the most effective sanctions regime against Iran in history, we believe it is unnecessary to take action now that is more appropriately reserved for a time when new sanctions might be needed.
 
Q    Except the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee disagrees with what you just said.  Bob Menendez gives the President credit for the current sanctions he says brought Iran to the table.  But then he goes on to say, "A credible threat of future sanctions will require Iran to cooperate."  How is Democratic Chairman Bob Menendez wrong?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Again, we don't think this action is necessary.  We don't think it will be enacted.  If it were enacted the President would veto it.  The fact of the matter is this is not a debate about being for or against sanctions.  There is no President in the history of this conflict with Iran who has been more aggressive in pursuing and enacting and building international consensus around sanctions than Barack Obama. 
 
And he has done that, not to take credit for the construction of a sanctions regime, but in order to test the theory that a comprehensive sanctions regime would compel Iran to change its behavior, would compel Iran to come to the negotiating table and would give us -- the United States and our P5-plus-1 partners, the opportunity to explore whether we can resolve this conflict diplomatically; that we can reach an agreement with Iran that would ensure that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons ambitions in a transparent, verifiable way; and that we would therefore resolve this diplomatically without having to pursue other means.
 
So, again, this is not -- there is no debate here about -- this is not a dispute about who is for sanctions and who is against sanctions.  The President's record on the use of sanctions for the broader purpose here is quite clear.  What we firmly believe is that we know that Congress could act quickly if Iran were to fail to comply.  I believe Iran knows that, because they have seen Congress act quickly in the past when sanctions were necessary. 
 
We believe that it's important to allow this diplomatic opening to be explored.  And the risk of passing new sanctions now is that it would -- doing so would derail the negotiations just when diplomacy is making progress.  It would potentially divide the international community, and obviously would suggest bad faith on the part of the United States in its negotiations. 
 
Q    On that point, isn't it hypocritical for the administration to say future sanctions by Congress, Democrats and Republicans doing it, could undermine these negotiations?  And yet this very week your own Treasury Department came out with not new sanctions, but new enforcement actions that angered Iran.  And you have Democrats as well as Republicans saying you've already angered them.  That could blow off the talks too. 
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, obviously, you know the very important distinction between enforcement of existing sanctions, on the one hand, and --
 
Q    They're not new sanctions.
 
MR. CARNEY:  Right, enforcement of existing sanctions on the one hand, which we clearly stated in the run-up to and the completion of the preliminary agreement with the P5-plus-1 would continue and were not part of any agreement with Iran in this preliminary stage on the one hand, and the imposition of new sanctions on the other.  You're right that there was some reaction to the enforcement of those existing sanctions.  But the members of the Iranian leadership also acknowledged that they were not new sanctions, and there was no prohibition in the agreement against the implementation of existing sanctions, which is what was the case here.
 
And I think that that action makes clear how serious we are about maintaining the existing sanctions structure and continuing to implement the existing sanctions.  What we do not believe is necessary and what we believe could be damaging and disruptive to the diplomatic effort here are new sanctions.
 
Q    So very last one on this then.  All the cases you just made very passionately, and the President has made -- I understand some of his top aides have been calling Democratic senators, urging them not to do this; you’ve got some of the top Democrats -- Schumer, Pryor, Landrieu, Casey and Menendez, as I mentioned, Democratic Chairman -- several top Democrats are saying no.  What does that say about the President’s standing with his own party right now that they're defying him?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I think that there is overwhelming support in the country and in the Congress for a diplomatic resolution to this conflict.  It is the far preferable choice that we resolve this challenge with Iran with our international allies diplomatically, peacefully -- even as we leave all options for resolving it on the table, including the use of military force.
 
It is absolutely his responsibility, the President believes, to fully test whether we can achieve a comprehensive solution through diplomatic means and before he -- and to fully test that proposition before he pursues alternatives.  And passing new sanctions legislation now will undermine our efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution and greatly increase the chances that the United States would have to take military action.
 
Now, let me just back up to where I started:  We don't believe this proposal is necessary -- as I think we’ve made clear, and we have been discussing with members of Congress for quite some time.  We don't believe it will be enacted.  We certainly know it’s not necessary.  If it were to pass, the President would veto it.
 
Q    Why don't you believe it’s going to be --
 
MR. CARNEY:  Because of -- the case we just made we believe is both accurate and persuasive.

...

Q    On Iran, you said that the administration has been having direct conversations with lawmakers.  Has the President been talking to Senators Menendez and Schumer and Cardin --
 
MR. CARNEY:  The President has certainly been involved in the effort.  I don’t have -- and then that means in discussions with members of Congress.  I don't have a specific conversation or meeting to read out.
 
Q    Is this the first time he I guess potentially would -- I realize this is a hypothetical -- veto a bill that's been co-sponsored by Democrats?
 
MR. CARNEY:  I would have to look at the history.  We’ve certainly -- it’s not far from the first time where we’ve said that if a bill were to pass, we would veto it -- the President would veto it.  But I don't know the answer to that question.

...