WASHINGTON — On Wednesday, the Tea Party Patriots (in conjunction with For America, the Zionist Foundation of America and Secure Freedom) staged a rally against the Iran nuclear deal on the U.S. Capitol’s west lawn.  The event, which drew speakers including presidential candidates Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Donald Trump, drew attendees from multiple states who carried signs, donned costumes and/or decked themselves out in all-things red, white and blue.  Here is a reporter’s-eye-view of the event.

President Barack Obama defended the Iran Deal at American University in Washington, D.C. Wednesday. “Now, we have before us a solution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon without resorting to war,” he said.

The talk Wednesday was part of a New America Foundation event that featured a keynote address by Rouhani and a subsequent conversation between him and journalist Fareed Zakaria. The event was billed as Rouhani’s first public speaking engagement before his Thursday United Nations General Assembly address. It came on the heels of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s announcement that the Iranian government would not align itself with the United States in its war on the Islamic State.

Asserting that extra-regional Mideast involvement “feeds and strengthens terrorism,” Rouhani said lifting nuclear sanctions would let Iran truly step up to the diplomatic plate.

“If the Islamic Republic of Iran could reach a comprehensive agreement on its nuclear program and leave sanctions behind, it will be able to assume a more active role in the process of intra-regional dialogue in the Islamic world,” he said during his speech.

Rouhani said Iran is the regional nation capable of battling the Islamic State in Iraq, citing its defense of Irbil and provision of military advisers to assist the Iraqis and Kurds as examples of efforts it has undertaken.

He insisted that the past 12 months’ worth of nuclear-adherence efforts by Iran were proof of goodwill and a willingness to build international trust in Iran’s nuclear program.

Protesters at Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s talk in New York City in September 2014.

“The precise measures implemented by us during the past year were geared towards showing the serious and firm commitment at the highest levels, meaning that under no conditions we will try to build, stockpile or use any type of nuclear weapons,” Rouhani said.

Though Rouhani said timely action against the Islamic State was needed, he called it “nothing more than a terrorist group” that “typifies a violent extremism.” He said the 2003 American attack on Iraq and subsequent invasions birthed terrorist groups and suggested the unrest following the American occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan “nurtured” the extremism.
But he was careful to note that this sentiment wasn’t meant as an attack on the U.S.

“My intent here is not to assign blame or to rehash history,” Rouhani said. “I only seek to show that the imposition of one’s will on societies and other nations with the use of violent and extremist methods is not possible, is not successful, nor is it useful.”

“Even though it may yield the desired results over the short term, over the long term, it will only create tragedies,” he explained.

In the same vein, during his conversation with Zakaria, Rouhani expressed fears that American training of Free Syrian Army fighters to fight the Islamic State in Syria could inadvertently lead to the creation of a new terrorist group. He also said he supports the empowerment of Syria to make its own decisions.
National Iranian American Council President Trita Parsi said Rouhani’s pushback against extra-regional Mideast intervention was consistent with an Iranian desire for the presence of “major foreign powers” in the Mideast to be greatly limited.

“That’s a longstanding Iranian position that precedes this regime because at the end of the day, it leads to a scenario in which Iran winds up becoming one of the key players in the region,” Parsi said in an interview.

Parsi also said that American interventions in Syria that could be perceived as being aimed at displacing Assad – whether or not that is the government’s actual intent – could make Iran dubious of American involvement in the fight against ISIS because it “affects the context” of U.S.-Iran negotiations.

“It’s not necessarily affecting the negotiation variables, but that context does impact the negotiations.”

New America Foundation Senior Fellow and Iran Initiative Director Suzanne DiMaggio, who delivered the event’s welcoming remarks, said that it was intended to try and bridge the communication gap between the U.S. and Iran in the midst of a 35-year halt in official diplomatic relations.

“Here at New America, we’re really dedicated to generating ideas [about] how to solve problems, and the only way you can do that is through dialogue and through debate,” DiMaggio said.

However, she warned that “a sobering approach” was needed to improving U.S.-Iranian relations due to “profound differences” between the two nations.

“I think what we’re seeing is maybe not the normalization of relations, but maybe we’re getting to a point where Americans and Iranian officials can sit down together on a regular basis and talk about issues,” she said.

But such sanctions may prove little more than political window dressing, say critics who point to hawkish chest-beating in the U.S. Congress and to the reality that overshadows espoused unity within the United Nations Security Council.

“It’s for domestic consumption,”  suggests Ivan Eland, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute and an analyst with Antiwar.com.  He does not believe sanctions will have any serious impact.

In fact, the efficacy of economic sanctions, according to many international policy experts, is highly suspect – merely a way to assure a worried electorate that something is being done while its intended outcome falls by the wayside.

“It will not work,” said Medhi Noorbaksh, a professor of international affairs at Harrisburg University of Science and Technology.  “The purpose of any sanction is to cripple an economy,” Noorbaksh explained,  adding that further punitive measures – either from the U.N. Security Council or U.S. Congress – still will not have a devastating affect on Iran.

“Always there are loopholes,” he said.

The United States first employed economic sanctions – restrictions on foreign commerce – against Iran in 1979, when former President Jimmy Carter banned Iranian imports following the hostage crisis. Most Iranian goods and services are still prohibited in the United States.

And the outcry over the Iran’s uranium enrichment program has spurred calls for new measures.

The House last week passed the annual military spending bill with an amendment to bar companies with military and energy sector ties with Iran from obtaining U.S. military contracts. The vote followed a tentative agreement between major powers to impose further sanctions on Iran through the United Nations.

That international accord, however, places China and Russia – major trading partners with Iran – in an awkward position. Unwilling to stem the flow of Iranian oil to their respective economies, both China and Russia are reluctant to support harsh measures.

“They always get watered down,” Eland said of such international sanctions.  “In Congress you only have to convince one country’s legislature,” he added but dealing with sanctions among several nations is tough.  “It’s even worse in U.N.”

Congress is expected to reconcile its current sanctions legislation, passed by the House in December and Senate in March, following the Memorial Day recess.

“They’re a middle-ground symbolism,” Eland said of the proposed sanctions, “between diplomatic slaps on the wrist that are perceived as too weak, and the military covert thing which is perceived as being too strong.”

Though they are a politically popular route – only 12 representatives voted against the House measure in December. In a war-weary nation with its armed forces stretched thin, sanctions might appear to circumvent another military front – a means to inflict pain without the fallout of a ground invasion. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted May 21-23, 62 percent of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq.  Support for opening a conflict with Iran is extremely low.

The danger, however, may be that sanctions fail to address uranium enrichment while actually raising the prospect of war.

“You put your prestige out there,” said Eland. If the U.S., for instance, claims progress on sanctions that end up ignored or impotent, there is little wiggle room to move back to the diplomatic table.

“It’s a paradox,” he added. “The more comprehensive you make them, the more likely the stakes get high and you’ll have to go to war.”