Society Issues Talk

Gandalf Grey · Guest

Iran in Congress' Sights

By David Swanson
Created Mar 7 2007 - 8:23am

The U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs is prepared to follow in Dick
Cheney's footsteps and shoot a friend in the face. I just sat through a
hearing on Iran, and there is apparently universal bipartisan agreement in
the committee that Iranians feel kindly toward Americans and welcome them as
friends, and that Iranians should be brutally punished by the toughest
economic sanctions possible. This simple truth went unstated: sanctions
kill.

Who remembers this exchange on your television a decade back?

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half
million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in
Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard
choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

The absurd notion that Iran constitutes a threat to the United States was
asserted in the opening breath out of Chairman Tom Lantos's mouth and never
questioned by a single speaker through the hearing. Not a single speaker
questioned the need to get tough on Iran in one way or another. Not a single
speaker questioned the idea that a nation years away from possessing nuclear
weapons and open to negotiating about them is a threat to the world's hugest
nuclear power. Not a single speaker questioned assertions made during the
hearing to the effect that Iran is supplying Iraqis with explosives. Not a
single speaker questioned US preparations for war on Iran. And not one voice
raised any concern over what sanctions would do to the Iranian people.

Some Republicans pushed for other routes to regime change, including funding
the MEK or other groups in Iran. One Republican pushed for going after Saudi
Arabia too. Some Democrats questioned failures to negotiate in the past. But
most Democrats questioned failures to impose strict enough sanctions now.

Lantos began by announcing a new bill he is introducing to impose tougher
sanctions on Iran. His bill, he said, would sanction oil companies that sell
to Iran, and would label Iran's Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist force."
Lantos also said he would work with Congressman Barney Frank (Dem., Mass.)
to divest funds from Iran. Ranking Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said she
supported the proposal.

As Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns waited to
testify, each Congress Member spoke briefly. Republicans tended to demonize
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and refer to Iran as "the world's leading
sponsor of terrorism," even arguing against negotiations on the grounds that
you must not negotiate with terrorists guilty of "blatant anti-Americanism."
That phrase was used more than once.

Burns would end up saying that the United States would not negotiate on the
nuclear question unless Iran stopped enriching uranium, but also saying that
the US and Britain have both sent messages through Switzerland asking Iran
to stop giving the assistance to Iraqis that the US has been unable to prove
Iran is actually giving. And the United States is meeting with Iranians and
Syrians in the coming days as part of a meeting with Iraqis.

Democrat Brad Sherman said he wanted to leave "the military option" on the
table but try tougher sanctions first. But Democrat Robert Wexler asked
Burns the following question: In 2003 the Iranians offered to stop
enrichment, to back a two-state solution, and to not fund Hezbollah, and we
didn't negotiate. Now they offer nothing and we negotiate. Why? (Burns
wouldn't get a chance to answer until every member in the room had spoken.)

Republican Dana Rohrabacher pointed out that most of the resistance in Iraq
comes from Sunnis with the support of Saudi Arabia. He proposed targeting
them as well as the Iranians.

Democrat Diane Watson made the strongest statement against war, and it was
this: "I would hope that the military option would be at the bottom of the
list and maybe not on the list at all." Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (Dem.,
Calif.) passed up her chance to speak.

When Burns got to speak, 50-minutes into the hearing, he said he had
submitted longer written testimony to Lantos but would summarize. He listed
four goals for the Middle East:

1-Democratic Iraq
2-Democratic Lebanon
3-Israeli-Palestinian peace
4-Blocking Iraq's nuclear ambitions and regional ambitions

The "regional ambitions" were never discussed.

Working off the same talking points as some of the Republican Congress
Members, Burns denounced Iran's "confrontational ideology and blatant
anti-Americanism." He said that Iran had defied the UN and the IAEA and used
rhetoric unheard "since the fascist regimes of the 1930s." And, Iran, he
said, has refused to suspend enrichment of uranium, which is the United
States' condition for negotiating.

Ignoring the question about Iran's 2003 offer and the US refusal, Burns
claimed that Iran had refused a US offer to negotiate and was continuing to
do so. Burns added as a footnote that the United States is requiring Iraq to
suspend enrichment as a condition of negotiating.

As we saw in the buildup to the Iraq War, Burns said the United States is
trying to pass a second resolution through the United Nations with tougher
sanctions against Iran.

Burns cited various specific divestment and sanction efforts against Iran,
and the Democrats hammered him later for piecemeal inconsistent work when
total sanctions are needed. Burns called Iran the central banker for Middle
East terrorism, the funder of Hamas and Hezbollah, and opposing peace
between Israel and Palestine. Burns claimed Iran was supporting Iraq with
weapons, but offered no proof, and nobody asked for any.

Lantos set the tone for the post-remarks questioning by claiming that the
U.S. Trade Representative is pushing a "free-trade" deal with Malaysia even
as that nation invests $16 billion in Iran. Burns evaded the question but
promised that a second UN resolution would make the sanctions "hurt."

Lantos asserted some degree of Congressional power: "When Congress passes
legislation with overwhelming bipartisan majorities," he said, "and the
administration waives the sanctions passed, we have to take away the waiver
authority of the administration." And that's what Lantos said his new bill
will do.

Burns asserted that he supports the existing law, a comment that's actually
informative coming from a member of the Bush administration.

Republican Chris Smith of New Jersey then broke things up a bit by pushing a
faulty translation of remarks by Ahmadinejad. Iran's president famously
advocated eliminating Israel, except that in the original he didn't - he
advocated eliminating its current government. Smith is or pretends to be
ignorant of this fact, and proposed treating the remark as a violation of
the Genocide Convention, since Ahmadinejad was "talking about the
elimination of an entire people."

Burns did not correct the error, but carefully avoided agreeing with it and
changed the subject to that of cultural exchanges. He said the U.S.
wrestling team had been given a "rapturous welcome" in Iran.

Asked about the UN Human Rights Council, Burns claimed the U.S. would not
seek a seat on it, since it had discredited itself last year by criticizing
Israel.

When Democrat Gary Ackerman got a chance to ask Burns a question, he picked
up on the unanswered question as to why the Bush administration had turned
down Iran's 2003 offer to negotiate. Burns claimed he wasn't at the State
Department at that time and so couldn't answer.

Ackerman asked if, out of curiosity, Burns had in recent days asked any of
his colleagues about it by any chance.

Burns hemmed and hawed and said that public comments by Secretary of State
Rice and others suggest that they were unsure it was a legitimate offer.

Ackerman asked how they could be sure now and why they had to let four years
pass to become sure.

Burns evaded the question and then said that now they can verify whether
Iran has ceased enriching uranium.

Ackerman asked why they couldn't have done the same four years ago.

Burns effectively said he didn't want to talk about it.

Congressman Rohrabacher, after pushing for backing the MEK, asked again why
there was no focus on the Saudis.

Burns made a halfhearted attempt to claim that there was no proof Saudi
Arabia was involved with the Sunni resistance in Iraq, and then simply
asserted: "We would never accuse our friends the Saudis of aiding and
abetting violence in Iraq."

But Rohrabacher actually had some idea what he was talking about and pointed
out that there is a website with hundreds of names on it identifying Saudi
martyrs who have died in Iraq fighting the Americans, and that there is
clearly money flowing from Saudi Arabia to the Iraqi fighters. Rohrabacher
turned to Lantos and proposed an investigation. Lantos thanked him but
didn't indicate whether he liked the idea.

Then the hearing returned to being dominated by Democrats pushing for
tougher sanctions. Sherman wanted sanctions against the sale of refined
petroleum products to Iran. Burns said the State Department was not seeking
that, and didn't say why.

When Lynn Woolsey, a leader of efforts to end the Iraq war in Congress,
finally spoke, she asked how the Iranian people's affection for America
would be affected by bombing them or trying to overthrow their government.
Burns replied that those were not US goals. Woolsey did not ask about how
sanctions would impact Iranians.

"Most Iranians have a positive attitude toward the US," Burns said, "and we
try of course to exploit that."

I append Congressman Tom Lantos' opening remarks as emailed by his office.
There's a phone number included for those who have comments:

Verbatim, as delivered March 6, 2007 Contact: Lynne Weil, 202-225-5021

Statement of Chairman Tom Lantos at Full Committee Hearing, "The Iranian
Challenge"

For decades to come, the world's preeminent historians will analyze the
Iraq War and its manifold impact. But one impact is already clear: when
dealing with a looming threat to international peace and security, Congress
will insist that all - and I mean all - diplomatic and economic remedies be
pursued before military action is undertaken.

We are far from having exhausted all diplomatic and economic options for
stopping Tehran's headlong pursuit of nuclear weapons. Talk of military
intervention is unwise and unsupported by Congress and the American people.

I am very pleased that the Administration has recently reversed course,
and will join Iran and Syria for discussions on stability in Iraq. Perhaps
this diplomatic contact with Iran might pave the way for a broader dialogue
with Tehran designed to bridge the gulf between our two nations.

But diplomacy with Iran does not stand a chance unless it is backed by
strong international sanctions against the regime in Tehran. Iran's
theocracy must understand that it cannot pursue a nuclear weapons program
without sacrificing the political and economic future of the Iranian people.

That is why this week I am introducing the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act
of 2007. The objective of my legislation is two-fold: To prevent Iran from
securing nuclear arms and the means to produce them. And to ensure that we
achieve this goal in a peaceful manner.

My legislation will increase exponentially the economic pressure on Iran,
and empower our diplomatic efforts by strengthening the Iran Sanctions Act.
It will put an end to the Administration's ability to waive sanctions
against foreign companies that invest in Iran's energy industry.

Until now, abusing its waiver authority and other flexibility in the law,
the Executive Branch has never sanctioned any foreign oil company which
invested in Iran. Those halcyon days for the oil industry are over.

If Dutch Shell moves forward with its proposed $10 billion deal with Iran,
it will be sanctioned. If Malaysia moves forward with a similar deal, it too
will be sanctioned. The same treatment will be accorded to China and India
should they finalize deals with Iran.

The corporate barons running giant oil companies - who have cravenly
turned a blind eye to Iran's development of nuclear weapons - have come to
assume that the Iran Sanctions Act will never be implemented. This charade
will now come to a long overdue end.

My legislation goes beyond the waiver issue. If a nation aids Iran's
nuclear program, it will not be able to have a nuclear cooperation agreement
with the United States.

Import sanctions will be re-imposed on all Iranian exports to the United
States. The Clinton Administration lifted sanctions on Iranian carpets and
other exports in an effort to encourage Tehran to undertake a dialogue. It
is self-evident that this diplomatic breakthrough has not occurred, and the
favor offered Iran will now be revoked.

My legislation also calls on the President to declare the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group. The Revolutionary Guard and its
Quds Force train terrorists throughout the Middle East, including in Iraq
and in Lebanon. The Revolutionary Guard, which is a major base of support
for Ahmadinejad, owns huge economic enterprises in Iran. Foreign banks will
think twice about dealing with these enterprises once the Guard is declared
a terrorist organization.

All of these actions will deprive Iran of the funds that currently support
and sustain its nuclear program.

I will also join with our colleague Barney Frank, the Chairman of the
Financial Services Committee, in introducing legislation to limit pension
fund investment in foreign companies that pour money into Iran's energy
industry. A variety of means will be used for this purpose from "name and
shame" for private funds to mandating divestment for public funds.

I want to acknowledge with pleasure Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen's
leadership on the Iran divestment issue and other Iran sanctions
legislation, and I fully anticipate that key elements of her proposals will
be incorporated in our bipartisan bill.

The reason for this all-encompassing approach -- and for its urgency -- is
that we have so little time. Iran is forging ahead with its nuclear program,
in blatant defiance of the unanimous will of the UN Security Council and the
International Atomic Energy Agency. Before it is too late, we must try to
persuade others to join us in increasing the diplomatic and economic
pressure on Iran and, where necessary, we must give them incentives to do
so.

I now turn to my friend and colleague, the esteemed ranking member of this
committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for any comment she might choose to make.

--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson