New Act Mandates Sanctions Review for Iranian Clerics Inciting Violence Against US and Israeli Leaders

This legislation, the Tehran Incitement to Violence Act, is laser-focused on a specific, high-stakes issue: documented threats of assassination against the US President and the Israeli Prime Minister made by certain Iranian religious and political figures. The bill doesn't create new sanctions; instead, it forces the US government to use existing tools against the people making these threats.

The core action is straightforward: The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury must determine if a list of named Iranian individuals and organizations meet the criteria for designation under several existing US sanctions programs. This review has a tight deadline—90 days after the Act becomes law—and must be repeated every 180 days for six years (SEC. 3).

The Hit List and the Religious Angle

Congress opened the bill by detailing specific instances where senior Iranian clerics and figures publicly called for violence, citing religious rulings (fatwas) and charges like Moharebeh (waging war against God) against the leaders (SEC. 2). This section essentially serves as the evidence file, pointing out that groups like the Qom Seminary and individuals associated with the IRGC have endorsed these violent calls, even mentioning an online fundraising campaign to finance the assassinations.

The list of those subject to review includes prominent figures like Ayatollah Hossein Mazaheri and organizations like the Qom Seminary and the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB). For everyday people, this means the US government is officially taking these threats seriously enough to dedicate resources to applying real-world financial consequences, potentially freezing assets and blocking transactions for anyone named. This is the government saying, “We see what you’re doing, and we’re going to hit your wallet.”

Leveraging Existing Financial Firepower

The bill is low on vagueness because it relies entirely on established legal frameworks. The criteria for designation aren't new; they include meeting the requirements for designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) or falling under a long list of existing Executive Orders (EOs) related to Iranian sanctions, human rights abuses, and terrorism financing (SEC. 3). For example, if Alireza Panahian is found to meet the criteria of EO 13224 (Blocking Property of Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism), he would be designated.

This approach is efficient: instead of crafting new rules, the Act mandates the application of existing, powerful sanctions authority. For those named, this could mean an immediate freeze on any assets under US jurisdiction, a ban on travel to the US, and severe restrictions on financial transactions—consequences that directly impact the ability of these individuals and organizations to operate internationally.

What This Means in the Real World

For US citizens, this Act is a direct response to foreign threats against US leadership, strengthening national security by imposing tangible costs on those who incite political violence. It’s a mechanism to ensure the Executive Branch uses its full range of sanctions tools promptly and consistently over the next six years against specific actors.

The practical challenge here lies in the broad criteria. While the initial focus is incitement to violence, the bill allows for designation based on any of the listed EOs, some of which cover arms activities or financial sectors. This means the individuals and entities named could be sanctioned for a variety of reasons, not just the assassination threats. While this maximizes the government's ability to act, it does rely heavily on the Secretary of State and Treasury to apply these broad powers judiciously, focusing on the intent of the bill—to counter incitement—while using the established financial leverage.