Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

IRAN: U.S. Sanctions versus U.N. Sanctions

Efforts by Congress to pass sanctions against Iran could jeopardize efforts by the Obama administration to organise multilateral sanctions through the U.N. or negotiate a diplomatic solution with Tehran.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

The U.S. Congress is moving forward with a bill to sanction companies that do business in Iran despite the White House's efforts to build international support for U.N. sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

U.S. business organisations and a number of experts here in Washington have expressed concern about the speed with which the Senate Banking and House Foreign Affairs Committee are working to reconcile the House and Senate Iran sanctions bills, and what impact this may have on the Barack Obama administration's efforts to organise multilateral sanctions through the U.N. or negotiate a diplomatic solution with Tehran.

The administration wants Congress to hold off on the Iran sanctions legislation until a deal is reached at the U.N.

News emerged today from the U.N. that an agreement might be reached on sanctions by mid-June, but the Senate and House have indicated that they are pushing for a reconciliation of the two bills before the end of May.

"I think it's likely to be around the end of the month or after the Memorial Day recess. All of the statements have indicated action before the recess but I wouldn't be surprised if it goes into June," Jim Fine, legislative secretary for foreign policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), a Quaker lobby group, told IPS.

"The thing that disturbs me most is that I have seen very little evidence that the U.S. is still working the engagement track. The Iranian counterproposal to the original IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] proposal is worth serious consideration by the U.S. and ought to be, in its main points, accepted by the U.S.," he said.

"The Iranian proposal would let the U.S. and the other members of the U.N. Security Council and the IAEA realise all the advantages from the nuclear exchange with some small changes in how the low enriched uranium is stored until the nuclear fuel rods are delivered," Fine continued.

Tehran has indicated that it could accept, in large part, the IAEA's proposal for exchanging Iranian low-enriched uranium for foreign made fuel rods, but wants to keep the low-enriched uranium in Iran, under IAEA safeguards, until the fuel rods are delivered.

The U.S., France and Russia had proposed that Iranian low-enriched uranium be shipped out of Iran immediately and held until the fuel rods are ready.

Some Iran specialists fault the administration for not making more generous offers to Iran during its "engagement" phase last year before moving to a containment strategy that includes additional sanctions, as well as other forms of pressure.

In their view, the "pressure track" – whether unilateral or multilateral – will not only prove ineffective, but will also strengthen Tehran's hardliners and ultimately make war more, rather than less, likely.

Cheered on by the so-called Israel Lobby centred around the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its Christian Zionist allies, the House of Representatives voted 412-12 last December to approve a far-reaching sanctions bill that, among other measures, would penalise foreign companies that export gasoline and other refined petroleum products to Iran.

The Senate followed with an even more sweeping bill aimed at third-country companies the following month.

Largely at the administration's behest, however, the Democratic leadership of both the House and the Senate held off selecting delegates to a House-Senate conference committee charged with reconciling the two bills until last month.

Business leaders have expressed their concern that the rush to penalise companies doing business in Iran could have negative impacts on the U.S. economy and hurt the competitiveness of companies affected by the sanctions.

In a May 6 letter to Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Howard Berman, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called attention to the business community's concerns with the House and Senate versions of the sanctions legislation.

"Most problematic are the specific provisions in both bills that could prohibit any U.S. company from transacting routine business with critical partners from around the globe even if these transactions have no bearing on business with Iran," read the letter.

Particularly of concern to the Chamber of Commerce is the possibility that U.S. firms would be subjected to sanctions which could penalise them for partnering with firms outside the U.S. which do business with Iran.

"In short, these extraterritorial sanctions could deliver significant harm to U.S. companies operating globally while doing little or nothing to inconvenience Iran," said the Chamber.

It has been a hot-button issue this week as the White House's calls for a "cooperating country status" in the legislation – a designation that would allow exemptions for companies from partner countries which are working with the U.S. on multilateral sanctions in the U.N. – was rejected by both Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

Berman, the House Foreign Affairs chair, acknowledged that the White House's suggestion had "a certain logic" but said he was under pressure from his own party and House Republicans.

A May 3 letter by a bipartisan group of 10 senators to Berman and Dodd urged the influential legislators to make sure the final Iran sanctions bill "requires implementation of the strongest possible sanctions".

"Specifically, we would find it difficult to support any conference report that would weaken&sanctions by providing exemptions to companies or countries engaged in the refined petroleum trade with Iran," said the letter.

The senators explicitly rejected revisions that "would exempt companies engaged in otherwise sanctionable activities because they are incorporated in so-called 'cooperating countries."'

Some in Washington see the threat of unilateral sanctions as a tool to persuade U.N. Security Council members to support multilateral sanctions and bring Iran back to the negotiating table.

"It's a double-edged sword. It's quite possible that the threat of unilateral sanctions may help push multilateral sanctions forward, which may help push the Iranians forward. But once you have the fact of unilateral sanctions it cuts in the opposite direction and makes it much harder to do multilateral work or convince the Iranians to move forward," said Fine.

"The threat of unilateral sanctions could conceivably help but the fact of unilateral sanctions will be a serious impediment to any progress," he said.

Eli Clifton writes for the Inter Press Service and is a contributor to IPS Right Web (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/). 

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share