Analysis & Opinions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
What Jeff Sessions as attorney general will mean for the Iran Deal
Already, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for the next US attorney general, Jeff Sessions (R-AL), has caused quite a stir over his domestic policy positions, not to mention his checkered past of making racially charged and divisive statements. Few pundits, however, have discussed what Jeff Sessions’ appointment could mean for the Iran Deal—the agreement negotiated last fall, which provides sanctions relief to Iran in exchange for limits on its nuclear program. As the country’s new top cop, Sessions will have sweeping authority to shape the Justice Department’s policies and priorities—some of which have the potential to affect relations with Iran, if indirectly.
While the attorney general does not have any big role to play directly in terms of the Iran deal, he is, however, responsible for enforcing and prosecuting key legislation that could affect the deal. Suppose, for example, that he decided to prosecute an Iranian for procuring dual-use items that are covered under the deal's procurement channel, but does not first use the dispute resolution mechanism that is in place under the Iran deal. What kind of tension might this cause between Washington and Tehran? In fact, the Obama administration has been quite mindful of these perceptions—deciding to take a hands-off approach to pursuing new indictments that may rock the boat so far as the deal is concerned. The FBI, for example, has several cases that are essentially on hold out of fear of upending the agreement. In other words, the Justice Department’s actions can carry a ripple effect.
For example, as head of the Justice Department, the attorney general decides if and when the department should undertake investigations or prosecutions related to currently existing Iran sanctions—regarding things such as Iran’s conventional missiles, its sponsoring of terrorism, its possible human rights violations, and any other similar activities. He can also decide when to pursue asset forfeitures, and what the criminal stakes will be for violators.
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.
For more information on this publication:
Please contact
Managing the Atom
For Academic Citation:
Arnold, Aaron.“What Jeff Sessions as attorney general will mean for the Iran Deal.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, December 16, 2016.
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Journal Article
- Quarterly Journal: International Security
The Stopping Power of Norms: Saturation Bombing, Civilian Immunity, and U.S. Attitudes toward the Laws of War
Journal Article
- Quarterly Journal: International Security
Does the Noncombatant Immunity Norm Have Stopping Power? A Debate
Analysis & Opinions
- Quincy Institute For Responsible Statecraft
A US Nuclear Weapons Surge in 2021 Would Have No Strategic Value
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Policy Brief
- Quarterly Journal: International Security
The Future of U.S. Nuclear Policy: The Case for No First Use
Discussion Paper
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Why the United States Should Spread Democracy
Report
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
David Petraeus on Strategic Leadership
Already, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for the next US attorney general, Jeff Sessions (R-AL), has caused quite a stir over his domestic policy positions, not to mention his checkered past of making racially charged and divisive statements. Few pundits, however, have discussed what Jeff Sessions’ appointment could mean for the Iran Deal—the agreement negotiated last fall, which provides sanctions relief to Iran in exchange for limits on its nuclear program. As the country’s new top cop, Sessions will have sweeping authority to shape the Justice Department’s policies and priorities—some of which have the potential to affect relations with Iran, if indirectly.
While the attorney general does not have any big role to play directly in terms of the Iran deal, he is, however, responsible for enforcing and prosecuting key legislation that could affect the deal. Suppose, for example, that he decided to prosecute an Iranian for procuring dual-use items that are covered under the deal's procurement channel, but does not first use the dispute resolution mechanism that is in place under the Iran deal. What kind of tension might this cause between Washington and Tehran? In fact, the Obama administration has been quite mindful of these perceptions—deciding to take a hands-off approach to pursuing new indictments that may rock the boat so far as the deal is concerned. The FBI, for example, has several cases that are essentially on hold out of fear of upending the agreement. In other words, the Justice Department’s actions can carry a ripple effect.
For example, as head of the Justice Department, the attorney general decides if and when the department should undertake investigations or prosecutions related to currently existing Iran sanctions—regarding things such as Iran’s conventional missiles, its sponsoring of terrorism, its possible human rights violations, and any other similar activities. He can also decide when to pursue asset forfeitures, and what the criminal stakes will be for violators.
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Journal Article - Quarterly Journal: International Security
The Stopping Power of Norms: Saturation Bombing, Civilian Immunity, and U.S. Attitudes toward the Laws of War
Journal Article - Quarterly Journal: International Security
Does the Noncombatant Immunity Norm Have Stopping Power? A Debate
Analysis & Opinions - Quincy Institute For Responsible Statecraft
A US Nuclear Weapons Surge in 2021 Would Have No Strategic Value
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Policy Brief - Quarterly Journal: International Security
The Future of U.S. Nuclear Policy: The Case for No First Use
Discussion Paper - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Why the United States Should Spread Democracy
Report - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
David Petraeus on Strategic Leadership


