newjerseynewsroom.com

Thursday
May 24th

U.S. Congress pressing for sanctions against Iran

While senior administration officials, notably Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have spoken in favor of imposing "crippling sanctions" as a source of pressure on Iran, they have also made clear that negotiations should be given a chance and that, in any event, multilateral sanctions, hopefully approved by the Security Council, were much preferable to unilateral ones.

"In the absence of any significant progress, we will be seeking to rally international opinion behind additional sanctions," Clinton said this week in Moscow.

Last May, Obama himself said he would wait until the end of the year to assess whether the negotiations track was making sufficient progress to continue his engagement policy or to adopt a more punitive approach.

And while the administration has not endorsed any of the unilateral measures pending before Congress, it has been consulting intensively in recent weeks with its western allies and other powers about what kinds of multilateral sanctions would be most effective if talks broke down.

While the Israeli government, which has described Iran's nuclear program as an "existential threat" to the Jewish state, has said it backs Obama's engagement strategy, the so-called "Israel Lobby" here, led by the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has been pushing hard to advance sanctions legislation swiftly through Congress.

In applauding passage of the divestment bill this week, AIPAC stressed that "Iran's continued defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding immediate suspension of Tehran's nuclear fuel work ...calls for concerted and forceful sanctions to compel (it) to change its behavior."

"For diplomacy to succeed, we must provide our diplomats more tools for their diplomatic toolbox," said Republican Rep. Mark Kirk, an IRPSA co-sponsor and a top recipient of campaign funds from political action committees closely linked to AIPAC.

"The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act is a good first step - but it cannot be the last," he said, urging the Democratic leadership to bring IRPSA to the floor "for immediate consideration".

Americans for Peace Now, however, denounced the sanctions push, arguing that "efforts to move them now would appear to be poorly timed, conflicting with the Obama administration's current engagement strategy, which for now puts the emphasis on diplomacy rather than additional sanctions."

Even Berman, the IRPSA's chief Democratic co-sponsor, indicated that he had strong reservations about the moving the bill now, insisting in an unusual statement that it was only "the fourth best option to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability".

"My first preference is to resolve the nuclear issue through diplomatic means, and I strongly support the Obama administration's efforts to engage Iran," he said.

"Should engagement not yield the desired results within a very short time, then my second preference would be tough, hard-hitting multilateral sanctions endorsed by the U.N. Security Council," he added. "If those are not possible to obtain, then the third best option is to work with a group of like-minded nations to impose such sanctions."

IPS NEWS AGENCY



 

Add your comment

Your name:
Subject:
Comment:


Follow/join us

Twitter: njnewsroom Linked In Group: 2483509

Hot topics

 

NJNR Press Box

 

Join New Jersey Newsroom.com on Twitter

 

 

Be a Facebook fan of New Jersey Newsroom.com

 

New Jersey Newsroom has plenty of room


**V 2.0**