Right Web

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

U.S. Congress Approves Strong Unilateral Sanctions on Iran

Both houses of Congress approved a sweeping unilateral sanctions package again Iran this week that raises to a new level Washington's confrontation with Tehran.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 

Inter Press Service

Escalating Washington's confrontation with Iran, both houses of Congress Thursday approved a sweeping unilateral sanctions package designed to pressure Tehran into curbing its nuclear programme.

The package, which President Barack Obama is expected to sign into law before the Jul. 4 holiday, would punish foreign companies that do business with Iran's energy sector, with "key Iranian banks", or with enterprises believed to be controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Negotiated by a "conference committee" created to reconcile two versions of sanctions bills passed separately by the House of Representatives and the Senate earlier this year, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act follows approvals by the U.N. Security Council in early June of a fourth round of relatively mild multilateral sanctions and by the European Union (EU) of a stronger set of unilateral sanctions last week.

"The Senate has taken an important step forward today as we pass a conference report that will impose tough new sanctions on Iran," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared shortly before the bill passed unanimously in the upper chamber.

"We're passing these sanctions because we believe we must stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, a weapon that would surely threaten the security of the United States and Israel," he added. "Our goal is to target Iran where it will hurt the regime the most."

But some critics warned that the sanctions were too broad-gauged and could harm Iran's general population at least as much as the regime.

"Congress had an opportunity to stand with the Iranian people by recalibrating U.S. sanctions to target Iran's government and ease pressures on innocent Iranians," said Jamal Abdi, policy director of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC).

"Unfortunately, Congress missed that opportunity and is moving forward with another sanctions measure that imposes pain indiscriminately, making no distinction between the people and the government," he added.

Other Iran specialists warned that the sanctions could prove counterproductive by provoking a nationalistic reaction that would strengthen the regime's hard-liners at the expense of reformists and the opposition Green Movement.

Approval of the new sanctions legislation comes as hawkish forces here, particularly those associated with the right-wing leadership of the "Israel Lobby," escalate their own campaign to press the administration to prepare for military action if sanctions fail to achieve their purpose within a relatively short period.

In a 51-page report released Thursday, the Bipartisan Policy Centre (BPC) argued that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon by October. It said that Washington should, among other steps, urgently "augment the Fifth Fleet presence in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, including the deployment of an additional (aircraft) carrier battle group and minesweepers to the waters off Iran; conduct broad exercises with its allies in the Persian Gulf; …initiate a 'strategic partnership' with Azerbaijan to enhance regional access."

"Only the credible threat of a U.S. military strike can make a peaceful solution possible," said retired ret. Gen. Chuck Wald, who co-authored the report with former Sens. Charles Robb and Dan Coats. "Ultimately, a U.S.-led military strike is a feasible, though risky, option of last resort."

The report, the latest of a series of three issued by the BPC's National Security Initiative over the past 20 months, echoed recent attacks by prominent neo-conservatives on what it called "the growing belief" that the threats posed by a nuclear-armed Iran "could be minimised through a strategy of containment and deterrence".

In addition to undermining U.S. credibility in the region, it declared, "a nuclear-capable Iran would seek to dominate the energy-rich Persian Gulf, threaten Israel's existence, destabilise moderate Arab regimes, subvert U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, embolden radicals, violently oppose the Middle East peace process, and increase support for terrorism and proxy warfare across the region."

Reflecting the growing political pressure for confrontation with Iran, the sanctions bill approved Thursday is significantly tougher than either the House or Senate version that was passed earlier this year. Indeed, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which has made sanctions its top legislative priority for several years, hailed it as "the toughest Iran sanctions bill ever to emerge from Congress."

Instead of focusing almost exclusively on penalising companies that export petrol to Iran, for example, the bill would punish any foreign enterprise involved with the country's energy sector. It also bans U.S. banks from any transactions with foreign banks that do business with companies believed to be controlled by the IRGC.

Lawmakers also rejected White House appeals to grant Obama authority to automatically exempt companies based in countries, notably Russia and China, that are deemed to be cooperating with U.S. policy on Iran.

With strong commercial interests in Iran, both Russia and China opposed U.S. efforts to toughen the sanctions resolution that was approved by the Security Council in early June.

The administration had argued that punishing their companies could jeopardise their future cooperation in the Security Council, where Moscow and Beijing hold veto power. It also argued that the companies of some European and other allies could also be negatively affected unless Obama was given the authority to provide blanket exemptions.

Ultimately, the administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress worked out a compromise under which Obama can waive sanctions against foreign companies in "cooperating countries" on a case-by-case basis so long as he can show that the waiver serves the "national interest".

Nonetheless, key business sectors opposed the package, noting, among other objections, that it could undermine the administration's efforts to maintain international backing for U.S. policy on Iran.

"Just two weeks ago, the administration successfully garnered international support and cooperation to impose additional multilateral U.N. sanctions against Iran," said Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, a lobby representing more than 300 major multinational corporations.

"Given this development, we are deeply concerned about the timing of this legislation and its unintended consequences for legitimate global commerce," he added. "We have and will continue to urge Congress to support the president's multilateral and multilayered diplomacy with Iran." 

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to IPS Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/). He blogs at http://www.lobelog.com/.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was a leading framer of the “global war on terror” and a staunch supporter of aggressive U.S. military action around the world.


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Right Web readers will be familiar with Mr. Fleitz, the former CIA officer who once threatened to take “legal action” against Right Web for publicizing reports of controversies he was associated with in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz recently left his job at the conspiracy-mongering Center for Security Policy to become chief of staff to John Bolton at the National Security Council.


Norm Coleman is chair of the Republican Jewish Coalition and a former senator from Minnesota known for his hawkish views on foreign policy.


Billionaire hedge fund mogul Paul Singer is known for his predatory business practices and support for neoconservative causes.


Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, is a passionate supporter of Trump’s foreign policy.


Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the largest “pro-Israel” advocacy group in the United States, is known for its zealous Christian Zionism and its growing influence in the Republican Party.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share