Highlights of Secretary Clinton Testimony on Iran Before House Foreign Affairs & Subcommittees

Apr 24, 2009

Highlights of April 22-23, 2009 House Foreign Affairs and Appropriations Subcommittee Hearings on Iran

What's the goal-no Bomb, or no "nuclear capacity"?
From Secretary of State Clinton's exchanges with House members it seems clear that the administration has settled on the concrete and potentially achievable goal of preventing Iran from "obtaining nuclear weapons.' Many in Congress, on the other hand, including House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Howard Berman, persist in describing the goal in the abstract, vague, and arguably unattainable terms favored by the Bush administration of stopping Iran from "obtaining a nuclear weapons capacity."

By some definitions, Iran has already attained a "nuclear weapons capacity," if what is meant is the know-how and industrial equipment to build a bomb. States that have foresworn nuclear weapons, such as Sweden and Japan, have a "nuclear weapons capacity" in this sense. If the abstract goal gains favor over the administration's current concrete formulation, negotiations with Iran will be headed for failure.

How long should the U.S. talk?
In addition to sticking to a concrete, achievable, definition of its goal, the administration is resisting congressional pressure to declare a limited time frame for the negotiations with Iran. This was clear from another Berman-Clinton exchange. Chairman Berman expressed support for the administration's policy of engagement with Iran but said engagement "can't be so open ended that we essentially pass the threshold that we're seeking to avoid." (In past statements Berman has said negotiations should last "three months" or "several months" without Iranian agreement to suspend uranium enrichment before major new sanctions should be imposed on Iran.)

At the hearing Wednesday Berman asked Clinton "what kind of time frame" she had in mind for engagement with Iran. Clinton's response made no mention of any time frame (and Berman did not follow up to challenge her omission). Clinton said only that the U.S. was engaging Iran and that engagement would increase U.S. leverage with allies and other states to press for new sanctions in the event that "our offers are either rejected or the process is inconclusive or unsuccessful." Citing the administration's decisions to take part directly in the "P5+1" (i.e. the permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany) nuclear negotiations with Iran, and to invite Iran to an international conference on Afghanistan at the Hague, Clinton affirmed that the U.S. is "more than willing to reach out to the Iranians to discuss a range of issues," but she also said in response to Berman that the U.S. was "laying the groundwork for the kind of very tough-I think you said crippling-sanctions that might be necessary" if engagement fails.

What about more sanctions?
House Foreign Affairs Middle East Subcommittee Chair Gary Ackerman also raised the issue of new sanctions. He said effective sanctions have to be multilateral and he asked Clinton, "Are we prepared to place sanctions on some of our friends and allies if they don't conform to a sanctions regime…?" Clinton, once again, pointedly failed to answer the question, but said only that "We actually believe that by following the diplomatic path we are on, we gain credibility and influence with a number of nations who would have to participate in order to make the sanctions regime as tight and crippling as we would want it to be… And it is our commitment that we will pursue [such a sanctions regime] if we are either unsuccessful or stonewalled in our other approach."

Support and Alarm
Clinton received perhaps the least equivocal support for the administration's Iran policy from Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (NE), who expressed appreciation for the Secretary's opening remarks and said, "I extend the hand of friendship. I stand ready to work with you in any creative way" for a solution of the Iran nuclear issue. Rep. Connie Mack (FL), on the other hand, cited Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's links to Iran, North Korea, and Russia and said, "we could find the same scenario where we did with the Cuban missile crisis, where you have Iran using Venezuela as an access point in our hemisphere to put pressure on the United States."