Thread by @mdubowitz

In a question from @SenSusanCollins Collins, @SecBlinken backs down from his previous commitment at his @SFRCdems confirmation hearing to defend terrorism sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran and National Iranian Oil Company. appropriations.senate.gov/hearings/a-rev…

At his @SFRCdems @SenateForeign nomination hearing, @SecBlinken had committed to maintaining these terrorism sanctions on the CBI and NIOC.

Since the U.S. first designated the #IslamicRepublic as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, every U.S. president & Congress have reaffirmed U.S. policy opposing Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and tying sanctions relief to it ending terror-related activities. fdd.org/2021/01/25/bid…

🚨🚨🚨 Sanctions relief for the below sectors of Iran's economy would provide *direct* budgetary assistance to the IRGC and to Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism. Why?

Because these sectors have been permeated by the IRGC👇
fdd.org/2021/01/25/bid…

And here’s the upcoming sleight of hand from the Biden administration. They will leave on “hundreds” of less important sanctions while lifting the most powerful economic ones including on the CBI, NIOC, NITC and key sectors.

Here’s what @SecBlinken said at today’s hearing:

“And I would anticipate in the event of a return to compliance with the JCPOA, *hundreds* of sanctions will remain in place, including sanctions imposed by Trump administration if they are not inconsistent with the JCPOA they will remain unless or until Iran's behavior changes.”

So the game is to spin out talking points on the quantity of sanctions that remain over the quality that are waived or lifted — and hope that Congress and the media don’t notice.

Will they fall for this? 🤔 We shall see.