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.

 

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

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


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.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share