Experts on Iran and Members of Congress Question Sanctions Bill

Jan 6, 2010

Excerpts from a House Subcommittee Hearing on Iran

On December 15, 2009, the House of Representatives voted 412 to 12 (with 4 present votes) to approve the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA) sponsored by Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Howard Berman (CA). Earlier the same day, witnesses at a hearing of the House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs testified persuasively that the bill was likely to be counterproductive and would hinder administration diplomacy with U.S. allies and Iran. Following are the most important points made by witnesses and House members at the hearing.

Subcommittee Chair John Tierney (MA), expressed fears that the bill would endanger the President's diplomatic efforts in his opening statement:

"Only with more flexibility in exercising sanction authority might the president secure greater cooperation from our partners in taking effective action and ultimately facilitate a change in Iranian policies. Now is a critical stage in the intense diplomacy seeking to impose significant international pressure on Iran….[we] ought to take care not to harm those prospects as they go forward."

Dr. Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution opened with skepticism about the efficacy of sanctions legislation:

"We've had 30 years of U.S. unilateral sanctions on Iran, and there should be no illusions that the likelihood of a more rigorous and more broadly implemented sanctions regime will produce a reversal of Iran's nuclear calculus quickly or easily….in the past when Iran has been under economic pressure, this has facilitated the coalescence of the regime and the consolidation of public support [for the regime]….

If we move forward with the sanctions approach that does not work, the alternatives, specifically military options, are far worse in terms of advancing U.S. diplomatic interests in the region."

Dr. George Lopez, a professor at Notre Dame, opened by suggesting that extended diplomacy not sanctions was a better approach:

"We cannot punish the Iranians into a nuclear deal. No state, even the United States, has ever been able to do that before. I don't see the conditions of success here. Only an astute mix of continued engagement, narrowly conceived sanctions applied at the appropriate time and versatile incentives will prompt the Iranians-hopefully-to change their nuclear posture."

Ambassador James Dobbins, Director, RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center echoed the other witnesses' reservations but argued that sanctions were the only available option:

"I think all the witnesses including myself agree that further international sanctions will probably not compel a change in Iran's nuclear policies….[but] we have the political imperative to not just stand there, but do something. In situations where inaction is unacceptable and preemptive military attack unappealing, sanctions may provide the only alternative….

Mr. Dobbins however, did not approve of the sanctions approach in the current IRPSA bill:

"A unilateral American ban [on gasoline] with extraterritorial application would seem to offer the worst combination of effects -- penalizing the population, strengthening the regime, embroiling the United States in endless disputes with its allies and disrupting the current international solidarity in opposition to Iran's nuclear aspirations."

Rep. Tierney asked what sort of sanctions Mr. Dobbins would prefer, to which Dobbins replied:

"I think that things like international travel bans, financial sanctions directed at individuals, named individuals, targeting companies that are owned by the Revolutionary Guard, and frankly, just labeling those individuals and those organizations as pariahs. And this has to be international to be effective."

Rep. John Duncan (TN) expressed regret that IRPSA would pass and said the U.S. needed a more neutral foreign policy in the Middle East:

"I think all of us know that this afternoon, we will pass, in the House at least, pass this sanction legislation by an overwhelming margin. And I think that's unfortunate because I think you've made -- the witnesses have made a pretty convincing case that these sanctions or this legislation is not a good thing to do, particularly -- at least at this time.

I think that we need a more neutral foreign policy toward the Middle East. I think we need to try very hard to be friends with Israel, but we also need to try harder and do more to be friends with other countries in the Middle East."

Mr. Dobbins explained the logic behind Iran's perceived ambitions:

"It's perfectly logical for Iran to be pursuing nuclear weapons. They're surrounded by other nuclear powers. And they're at a level of sophistication and capability which allows them to achieve a nuclear capability. If Barack Obama or George W. Bush were elected president of Iran, they would be pursuing a nuclear capability. Any leader in that geo- political context would be."

Mr. Dobbins responded to Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer's (MO) concerns about Iran imminently producing nuclear weapons by downplaying the urgency:

"I think the deadlines and a sense of urgency may tend to work against us rather than for us. They don't feel a sense of urgency. If we feel a sense of urgency, then we're the ones under the gun. We are the ones who are constantly pressured to come up with new ideas, new proposals, new diplomatic offers…. I am arguing that we need a sustainable policy. A policy that will continue to penalize Iran; will continue to make it over the longer term unattractive for Iran to either gain or retain a nuclear capability."

"If Iran has nuclear materials for a weapon, [then] they have a facility we don't know about and can't bomb. Because we don't know it exists, and we don't know where it is. So if Iran could develop a nuclear weapon at this point, they would do it in a way that we would have absolutely no way of stopping unless we invade and occupy the entire country. The uranium they do have, which we know about is not capable of creating a bomb; and wouldn't be capable of creating a bomb for several years. Because it requires extensive further enrichment, which the Iranians do not at the present have the capability of doing, but which they could do over an extended period of time."

Dr. Maloney closed by suggesting multilateral efforts instead of the IRPSA bill and cautioned against notions of military action in Iran:

"Where we go next is not more unilateral measures that have limited or counterproductive impact within Iran. Where we go next is to the U.N. Security Council, test how successful we've been in changing the dynamic with the Russians, test how serious the Chinese are as they've suggested, at least in some rhetoric, about applying new pressure to Iran, and test the Europeans…."

"If you thought Iraq was a complicated war, try Iran-that the military option is not just an issue of using strategic bombing of suspected targets, which would clearly backfire and clearly galvanize the population around the regime, however much they hate it, but would, because of the nature of conflict…look like an open-ended war with Iran."

Mr. Dobbins ended by summarizing the flaws of unilateralism in the IRPSA bill which the House passed later in the day:

"I think that the element of the bill that you face, as I understand it, that would disrupt international solidarity and make agreement more difficult are-is the extra territorial elements-the effort to use U.S. law to impose sanctions on foreign companies for doing something that's perfectly legal in their own country and perfectly legal internationally. And to the extent-we've done that in the past and we've ended up backing away from it because of the virulently negative reaction of our closest allies to being manipulated in that fashion."