THE HILL
 

Dems frustrated with President Obama's hesitation over new Iran sanctions

By Kevin Bogardus - 10/06/09 01:27 PM ET

Lawmakers grew increasingly frustrated with the Obama administration on Tuesday as a State Department official refused to endorse a new package of sanctions on Iran that is expected to speed through Congress this year.

Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg told the Senate Banking Committee the administration is reserving judgment for now on the new sanctions being considered by senators. That led to some consternation among the panel’s members, including prominent Democrats.

 “I find it troubling that the administration is not looking to support the toughest sanctions possible,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).

“You don’t want Congress to pursue the legislation, but you don’t give us a verifiable timeframe. That makes us very uneasy,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). “Regardless of what is said, we need real action.”

Steinberg said the administration is pursuing a dual-track strategy of engaging with the Iranians while threatening isolation if Iran does not grant concessions.

Pressed by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), he acknowledged the administration has not asked Congress to pass new sanctions. He also said sanctions would be more effective if they were multilateral.

“Sanctions are not only more effective if they are broad-based, but it also takes away the political argument that Iran could make that it is just U.S. hostility,” Steinberg said.

But that could be difficult. Imposing multilateral sanctions through the United Nations would depend on the support of Russia and China, which have been reluctant in the past to take that step.

Iran last week began a new series of negotiations with the U.S. and other countries over its nuclear program after its disclosure days earlier of a secret uranium enrichment facility in Qom. The disclosure sparked new momentum on Capitol Hill for sanctions against Iran.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Banking Committee, is putting together a comprehensive package of sanctions by combining several bills already introduced that have broad support across party lines. Dodd is looking at measures that would impose penalties on companies that support Iran’s imports of refined petroleum and authorize state and local governments to divest from firms doing business with Iran.

The U.S. already has an array of sanctions on Iran that have been in place since the 1979 takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran. Most recently, Congress in 1996 passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, which sanctioned foreign investment in Iran’s energy sector.

Lawmakers hope the new sanctions would impact the regime by limiting the country’s gasoline supply. While Iran is a huge exporter of crude oil, it imports refined petroleum, much of it from China.

“Gasoline is one of the few pressure points that if we act unilaterally, we can put real pressure on their economy,” Schumer said.

Dodd said he would move his sanctions bill through his committee this month.

Moves by Congress to impose unilateral sanctions on Iran could complicate the administration’s multilateral negotiations with that country, particularly since the sanctions could affect private companies in Russia, China and other nations involved in the talks.

Steinberg said continuing diplomatic talks with Iran were the key to winning support from Russia and China. If a good-faith effort by the United States to negotiate with Iran was not rewarded, Steinberg said, it becomes more likely that Russia and China would join with the administration in increasing sanctions.

He promised lawmakers that the administration will return to Congress if negotiations with Iran this month led to no positive change.

“If we don’t see any action in the next few weeks, we will need to move very quickly,” he said. “We will be ready and we will be coming back to tell what we want to do.”

Corker said it seemed to him that the White House opposed the legislation being put together by Dodd. He also voiced concern that the bill could imperil negotiations with Iran.

“It does worry me that we could get in the way of the work you are doing,” Corker said.

But Dodd was adamant that new sanctions must be passed by lawmakers.

“This has gone on for too long,” Dodd said in reference to Iran’s nuclear program. “We don’t relish the choice, but we have no other choice.”

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/61829-dem-senators-show-frustration-with-obama-over-iran-sanctions

Comments (12)

Uh, wouldn't it be a better idea to see if Iran will first comply with the UN inspections first, as it said it would?THEN, if it doesn't, yes, tough sanctions.BY GUMBY DAMMIT on 10/06/2009 at 15:16
Yes, Iran has a habit of complying with UN requirements, oh wait…If it looks and smells like someone is jerking you around, it probably is.But the liberal attitude is to blame America first, except when the Messiah is in charge, then blame Bush.BY THE THICK RAPIER on 10/06/2009 at 15:34
1-2 weeks are not going to make or break anything, so this doesn't seem like a real issue. Everyone (except Obama) knows that Iran will not cooperate with anything, or will lie and then do what they want, as always. Perhaps we have to let this new POTUS find this out himself, as long as he doesn't take to long and harm us all in the process.BY Buster on 10/06/2009 at 15:53
The Obama Administration has a refreshing 1970's feel about it. Ideology over reality. Dems fighting amongst themselves. While the world burns and our economy tumbles. The irony is the Soviets dug their grave yard in Afghanistan during the Carter Admin; I am deathly afraid Obama is digging our graveyard in the same region.BY richardb on 10/06/2009 at 17:45
What a mess. Didn't take long for this administration to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If anyone's to blame for turning Afghanistan into a quagmire,its BHO (mmm mmm mmm). That's right, Mr. President. Take your time, think about it, study it, maybe read a few books on military strategy. Maybe even take a history class, since we all know that up until now, the only history you care about is your own. It's not like anyone's dying over there… at least no one YOU sent over there to try to win this fight.BY TJK on 10/06/2009 at 19:05
God it's good to have a PRESIDENT who is1 transparently unqualified2 unable to make a decision without someone else3 Never even been a boyscout 4 NEVER played 'team' sports5 Can't stand up to his wife6 Can speak up about Kanye but not Sanctioning a despot7 Cares more about the olympics than the unemployed8 got elected because 56 % of the population liked the cut of his suit and didn't care about 1-7Now to wait for him to tell us it's all good… (insert elevator music here)naaaah Why wait when you can kick his ass outta office for everything previously mentioned by everyone (and me) along with the corrupt radical czars he has subplanted the checks and balances that has for 240 years made this country great!) YOU ARE AN EMBARRASSMENT MR PRESIDENT IF AMERICA SHOULD BE APOLOGIZING FOR ANYTHING IT'S PUTTING YOU IN OFFICEBY gregg on 10/06/2009 at 20:31
GREGG, the left loves him because he's weak and they can control him. President Fluffy is nothing more than a sock puppet.BY Mark X on 10/07/2009 at 07:39
OBAMA is weak and is about to put America in a bind. You see, Israel is going to attack Iran if the US and world does not try to do something. Jimmy Carter all over again here we go.BY Steve on 10/07/2009 at 11:01
All you hear is…bla..bla..bla…, and then we are going to hear the finale from Iran-BOOM!What's wrong with these Congress and administrations .Which part they don't understand?Iran is building nukes and when they get them-they will use it. It is not doubt about it. It is just a matter of time, unless the USA and Israel stop them. No one has to be a genius to know it just a little be of common sense will tell you that it is what it is going to happen.BY angel on 10/07/2009 at 16:04
I'm going to go out on a limb here and take a wild guess that you guys despise Obama and you'd probably find something negative to say about him if he ran into your burning house and saved your family. What would you prefer, he bomb Iran like McCain proposed? Or just the litany of unilateral sanctions that Bush already tried that didn't work? I must say the avalanche of good ideas in here combined with the agenda of saying "No" to whatever Obama might even hypothetically think of doing is really heart warming.BY Eskimo on 10/11/2009 at 23:28

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.