Congress, Obama at odds over new Iran sanctions
Congress, Obama at odds over new Iran sanctions | The Times of Israel.
Opinions differ on how much time to give recently elected president Rouhani to prove he’s serious about changing nuclear policy
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress is considering a new series of hard-hitting Iran sanctions on everything from mining and construction to the Islamic republic’s already besieged oil industry, despite concern from the Obama administration that the measures could interfere with nuclear negotiations.
House and Senate bills are both advancing at a time President Barack Obama’s national security team is gauging whether Iranian President-elect Hasan Rouhani is serious about halting some elements of Tehran’s uranium enrichment activity. Those involved in the process said the administration wants to temper Congressional plans until Rouhani takes office in August and has an opportunity to demonstrate whether his government will offer concessions.
The legislation would blacklist Iran’s mining and construction sectors, effective next year, because they are seen as heavily linked to Iran’s hard-line Revolutionary Guard corps. It also would commit the US to the goal of ending all Iranian oil sales worldwide by 2015, targeting the regime’s biggest revenue generator and prime source of money for its weapons and nuclear programs.
US penalties that went into effect last year already have cut Iran’s petroleum exports in half, but that still leaves billions of dollars coming in every month from Turkey, China and several other Asian countries.
The House’s bill may pass before Congress’ August recess. The Senate version won’t get a vote until at least September, said Sen. Bob Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a leading advocate of tougher Iran sanctions. The Senate Banking Committee, which will put forward the package, is in ongoing consultations with the administration, according to one US official who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the sanctions.
Republican Sen. John McCain said the US should immediately “plow ahead” with greater and tougher measures against Iran. “We’re running out of time,” he said.
The US and many other countries believe Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Obama has said Iran has until sometime next year to prove to the world its nuclear program is peaceful. If diplomacy fails, the stage may be set for a military intervention by the US or Israel, which sees an Iranian nuclear weapon as a threat to its very existence.
In a report last week, David Albright and Christina Walrond at the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security concluded that Iran will be able to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear explosive without being detected by mid-2014.
Iranians insist their program is solely for energy and research purposes.
The State Department wouldn’t comment specifically on new legislation while it said it was waiting for Rouhani to be sworn in. “We will see what he does once in office,” spokeswoman Marie Harf said.
A senior US official said the administration’s concerns were about the timing and content of the legislation.
If Rouhani is serious about compromise, setting new sanctions in advance of talks risks undercutting him, the official said. Even if the new Iranian leader isn’t serious, the oil measures in particular are problematic, turning a potential US diplomatic success into a failure.
If China or Japan, for example, decides to flout the US demand to stop all importing from Iran, the administration would then have to weigh enforcing the law by blacklisting Chinese and Japanese banks and companies at the risk of widespread economic harm — including for Americans. The likelier result is that the US does nothing, making the sanctions look hollow and eroding international solidarity on pressuring Iran.
Despite wide bilateral support in Congress for tougher sanctions, some Democrats and Republicans are embracing the administration’s cautious approach. In a letter last week to Obama, 18 Republican House members joined more than 100 of their Democratic colleagues in urging the president to “reinvigorate US efforts to secure a negotiated nuclear agreement” and give Rouhani a chance.
Rouhani’s election clearly has bolstered hope of compromise. A former nuclear negotiator and relatively moderate cleric, Rouhani has suggested a more accommodating approach than his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has final say on nuclear issues.
Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said last week his country would be ready to resume talks once Rouhani, who takes office the first weekend in August, puts together a negotiating team.
World powers want the meeting “as soon as possible,” Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, said last week. Ashton has served as the point of contact for the US, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia since talks with Iran restarted last year. They’ve yet to make significant headway despite four rounds of discussions.
Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an adviser to Congress and the administration on Iran sanctions, said moving forward with new measures made sense. “Iran’s nuclear ploys continue to beat Western economic pressure,” he said. “The administration must go into the next round of negotiations with significant, re-enhanced leverage.”
The administration has other options too. It could toughen enforcement of existing restrictions on Iran related to energy, shipping, port management and other sectors the US has blacklisted in recent months. Dubowitz estimated that stamping out gold flows to Iran that already are subject to US penalties could eliminate $20 billion a year in Iranian government revenue alone.
The rough parameters of any larger nuclear deal with Iran are clear. It would have to include the West scaling back some of the sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy over the past few years. In return, the Iranians probably would be allowed to continue producing low-enriched uranium for fuel but would be required to halt production of any higher-enriched material that comes closer to warhead-grade, and send existing stockpiles of such material out of the country for safekeeping. Western powers also would surely demand tougher monitoring of Tehran’s nuclear activities.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized
WarSclerotic 
July 23, 2013 at 3:16 PM
I’m sure most of you have heard this one before, but It’s so fitting:
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
Red lines anyone?
July 23, 2013 at 3:59 PM
Luis, whit more and heavier sanctions we get the following situation if they work out as supposed.
If they do not work out we have given a signal that they can do what they want.
The people of iran will get very unhappy
1) the start revolting against there government
2) they start backing up there government fully
I do not see option one after the experience they had the last time whit the support of the wets, and the Iranian government had the time to take action to prevent a new revolt.
option 2 is more likely and whit the gained time we have given iran, it will technical and political easier for iran to get the nuke.
Red lines are a stupid political weapon, you put yourself in a corner to act conform the red line.
The signal given now by obamdrama is a conformation for iran that there politics are working and option 2 become more and more reality.
There is in my opinion just one good solution at the moment.
Stop whit all sanctions now and bomb the living hell out of the nuke plants.by the usa / nato NOT BY ISRAEL !
In this way you show the Iranian people that we are on there side
Oke we have a problem here, Russia, but if we keep the action only to the nuke sites, i do not think they will go to an all out confrontation whit the west but i,am not complete sure about that.
If so let get over it and speed up the battle for world power
If Israel has to do it on herself, i can not oversee the aftermath it will be not nice.
You know the shit like, we where talking and Israel start bombing, it will cost Israel dearly.
July 23, 2013 at 4:48 PM
Joop, I think you got the situation regarding the sanctions very close to the truth.
The sanctions against Iran were spectacular and ”photogenic” initially and were pointed as a big success of our PM, Netanyahu (Bibi). But those sanctions couldn’t succeed as long as the prime players didn’t play the game. Russia, China, never stop to help Iran overcoming the difficulties resulted from the ”sanctions”; and were more other players as well who helped the Iranians. Sanctions on this scale against such a big country were doomed before they have born. An interesting similar – or not ? – example can be found in the French – British history of conflicts, when Napoleon tried to impose the Continental Blockade against the British Empire and failed conclusively.
It seems to us that the obvious to all is what Israel has to do, but I started to be heavily in doubts if the Israeli establishment has the guts to do what they have to do. The principal source of concerning here is our PM, who is highly hesitant in spite the fact that his rhetoric is very menacing. I have my doubts and, sincerely, I don’t see him giving the go order. I wish I’ll be damn wrong on this one, because its not so important who or when was right between us, the humble people. The War in Syria will escalate, change sides and faces long before an Israeli operation in Iran – if any – will be launched.
July 23, 2013 at 4:57 PM
Syria: United States draw up multi-billion dollar plans for military strike
German of economic news | Published: 23.07.13, 13:55. Updated: 23.07.13, 15:13. 5 Comments
The Chief of staff of the US armed forces, Martin Dempsey has established five detailed options for a U.S. intervention in Syria for the U.S. Congress. But the well elaborated proposals for a military strike was extremely expensive and could descend further into chaos Syria, so Dempsey.
Topics: Assad Damascus, Dempsey, intervention, Kurds, military, opposition, PYD, Syrians, Syria, United States
The Chief of staff of the US armed forces presented five options for a Syria intervention, Martin Dempsey, the United States Congress. (Photo: Flickr/Secretary of Defense)
The Chief of staff of the US armed forces presented five options for a Syria intervention, Martin Dempsey, the United States Congress. (Photo: Flickr/Secretary of Defense)
While a number of American congressmen and Senators for a U.S. intervention in Syria are calling, the US Army Chief of staff Martin Dempsey shows still subdued.
In an open letter to the Chairman of the armed services Committee of the US Senate, Carl Levin, Dempsey writes that the costs of a Syria intervention far could be higher, as their benefits. That is the great uncertainty. “If we should get involved, then we must prepare us also, what follows after that”, as Dempsey.
Five options against Syria
But overall, there were five options of a US intervention. The first option consists in training the armed opposition. This includes also logistical help. To do this, the involvement of allies in the region is important. The cost would limit each year to 500 million US dollars. It was the cheapest option.
Second, the United States could conduct surgical air strikes against strategically important facilities of the Syrians. However, the use of hundreds of aircraft would be needed. Warships, aircraft carriers, submarines and other military-technical equipment would be added. The cost would be in the billions.
The establishment of a no-fly zone would cost $ 500 million monthly first and then in the course of the year, monthly $ 1 billion increase.
The precondition for buffer zones is the establishment of no-fly zones. The monthly cost of a buffer zone would be also to one billion US dollars.
Dempsey writes in the letter, that the Syrian Government chemical weapons arsenal could be destroyed. Then the U.S. air force, special operations forces and ground forces would be used. Here too, the monthly costs in the billions would be.
Syrian opposition is impotent, and divided
“All of the above would help the opposition to exert more pressure on the regime. But the past ten years has taught us that not only the change in the military situation in a conflict are important. It is important what comes next. If Syria State institutions through our usage should collapse, extremists could gain the upper hand. You had that”access to C-weapons.
US Chief of staff Dempsey apparently has a great distrust of the Syrian opposition. Because the opposition is still very divided, writes McClatchy employees William Douglas in an article.
Last week Dempsey had said during a hearing at the Senate Armed Services Committee that the command to a US military strike against Syria by the US President can be given. The senators were not satisfied with the response. You expect a firm stance on the question of Syria from Dempsey (more here).
Although Dempsey warns of the looming costs and developments of intervention, but the letter shows that the United States already intensively preparing for a military strike. After all, five possible options have been elaborated.
Bing translation
http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2013/07/23/syrien-usa-stellen-milliardenschwere-plaene-fuer-militaerschlag-auf/
July 23, 2013 at 6:26 PM
Does anyone else notice that Obama’s Iran policy is now a bad rerun of 2009, which was itself a rerun of the 2006 Iran policy of Bush and the Europeans?
Obama is irrelevant now on Iran. So is Rouhani. The people who matter are Ali Khamenei and Benjamin Netanyahu. They’re the ones who will decide how and when this plays out (and I don’t think we’ll have to wait much longer for the war we all know is on the horizon).
July 23, 2013 at 6:34 PM
Glad you brought this up Joop. I was just about to post the same. My response…it ain’t gonna happen. The American people are not going to let Congress spend all this money, especially when Obama says he cannot even afford White House tours. The defense budget has been slashed and the people are fed up with all this reckless spending.
July 23, 2013 at 8:31 PM
How will they stop them ??
July 23, 2013 at 9:14 PM
They won’t.
July 23, 2013 at 7:03 PM
“Sanctions” by Obama will not work in stopping Iran developing a nuclear capability.