Obama gutting Iranian sanctions bill, Congress fights back

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
WASHINGTON – US legislators met to reconcile differences in the House and Senate versions of the Iran sanctions bill Wednesday, as they pressed forward with the measure in the face of administration reservations.

The Obama administration has expressed concern that the legislation could hurt multilateral efforts to get countries such as China and Russia on board with its long sought UN Security Council resolution slapping further sanctions on Iran.

The administration has also indicated it expects to see that resolution hammered out by the end of spring, or June 21, and has been working intensely with its UN colleagues to that end.

But the measures currently under consideration there are far weaker than the US bill, which would seek to bar gasoline imports to Iran by penalizing countries that supply it refined petroleum. Russia and China are key targets, but the US has been seeking exemptions for them so they won’t derail the UN effort, though both countries have yet to embrace tough measures there.

Congress has been reluctant to grant the exemption, but the final decision will be made by the conference committee that began work Wednesday.

Some members voiced strong reservations on any exemptions and softening of the measure.

“The security of our nation and our allies cannot afford for this conference to produce a bill that is so full of holes, carve-outs, exemptions or waivers that no one takes it seriously. We’ve been down that road before,” warned Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee during the conference meeting. “It is time for Congress to fill the vacuum created by executive branch inaction and enact crippling, mandatory sanctions that address the rapidly growing threat posed by Iran.”

“The idea of country-by-country waivers is absurd,” agreed Rep. Brad Sherman (D-California), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade. “They will waive virtually every country unless they decide to simply ignore the law.”

He said that if the bill were to be “anything more than a mockery,” Congress would need to require reports, oversight and limits on appropriations.

In a separate move earlier this week, Sherman and 16 colleagues wrote to the president of Harvard in support of students who are urging the university to divest its holdings in companies involved with Iran’s energy sector.


Other members at the conference committee Wednesday suggested that tough legislation could strengthen the administration’s hand rather than weaken it.

“I want the toughest possible sanctions on Iran. I want unilateral sanctions. I want multilateral sanctions. I want UN Security Council-mandated sanctions. And I want these sanctions now,” declared Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-New York), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Middle East subcommittee. “Today, we are going to move forward on a sanctions bill that I believe will strengthen the Obama administration’s diplomatic hand. The world, and I mean both our allies and others, needs to know that the United States is done waiting.”

The committee aims to have the final version of the bill completed by the end of next month.
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?ID=174365

So basically, Obama wants the power to exempt certain countries from participating in the international-backed sanctions on Iran.

In other words, states like Russia and China could continue trading with Iran and USA would do nothing to stop it.

The sanctions bill would be more or less worthless.

Why is Obama so bent on allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons? Why doesn't he just admit it?

His team of leftards promise "toughening" sanctions on Iran, but I don't see it.

I wish Obama would be as tough on Iran as he is on Israel.

now we're gonna grant a-jad a visa into the USA:

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?ID=174363
 

Jiggz

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2001
4,329
0
76
There is a reason Obama vowed to the Saudi King and why he's not taking it hard on Iran and other Muslim countries, because he was born and raised as one of them.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
shocker.

Meanwhile, back at the batcave...

Clinton blasts Iran, Syria in appearance before Jewish group
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/04/29/hillary.clinton.iran.syria/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
As the United States prepares for a visit next week by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned his regime in some of the Obama administration's strongest language to date in a speech Thursday night.
ooooOOOO, THAT OUGHTA SHOW THEM!!!11
"Iran, with its anti-Semitic president and hostile nuclear ambitions, also continues to threaten Israel, destabilize the region, and sponsor terror," Clinton said, addressing the annual meeting of the American Jewish Committee. "The United States is committed to pursuing [a] diplomatic path. But we will not compromise our commitment to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons."
Damn... I wonder if their clerics and old Mahmoud are quivering in a corner after hearing such "strong language."


:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
shocker.

Meanwhile, back at the batcave...

Clinton blasts Iran, Syria in appearance before Jewish group
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/04/29/hillary.clinton.iran.syria/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+ReaderooooOOOO, THAT OUGHTA SHOW THEM!!!11

Damn... I wonder if their clerics and old Mahmoud are quivering in a corner after hearing such "strong language."


:rolleyes:

Oh wake up.. we live in the real world. This isn't some video game for which you can plug in a cheat code and win easily. If you think any action against Iran would be a piece of cake you're as delusional as they come.

Obama and Hillary are playing good-cop, bad-cop. How it pans out remains to be seen, but it's not an altogether stupid idea.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Oh wake up.. we live in the real world. This isn't some video game for which you can plug in a cheat code and win easily. If you think any action against Iran would be a piece of cake you're as delusional as they come.

Obama and Hillary are playing good-cop, bad-cop. How it pans out remains to be seen, but it's not an altogether stupid idea.

Given that this is Iran, it is a very stupid idea. We need concrete actions to back up our words, or the words are useless. Some countries quiver when we rattle our sabers. Iran hasn't been one of them for a while.

Talking tough is not being tough.
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,764
347
126
Nothing wrong with Iran having nuclear weapons. They are a bunch of smart people with good intentions; The likely hood of any nation attacking another with nuclear arms is so unlikely it's laughable.

The only thing that could hurt us is sanctions against Iran... that might destabilize the country; now that would be bad for us.

We would be much better off giving Iran nuclear arms than we would be trying to stop them from getting them.

As a matter of fact, we should offer to give nuclear weapons to any country that can show a history of being a stable democracy that protects the rights of minorities and women while educating and investing in its people.

Now that I think about it:
Nuclear weapons could be the greatest anti-terrorism weapon we could possible use.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
IrishScott, If we want concrete actions to back up our sanctions, the solution is very simple, just get Russia and China and many other countries to back us. Failing that, all the congressional bills in the world will be counterproductive.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
IrishScott, If we want concrete actions to back up our sanctions, the solution is very simple, just get Russia and China and many other countries to back us. Failing that, all the congressional bills in the world will be counterproductive.

They wont.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
IrishScott, If we want concrete actions to back up our sanctions, the solution is very simple, just get Russia and China and many other countries to back us. Failing that, all the congressional bills in the world will be counterproductive.

It's better than nothing, would show the world we're serious if nothing else. Hardly counter-productive.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Given that this is Iran, it is a very stupid idea. We need concrete actions to back up our words, or the words are useless. Some countries quiver when we rattle our sabers. Iran hasn't been one of them for a while.

Talking tough is not being tough.

Concrete actions like what? Invasion?
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
It's better than nothing, would show the world we're serious if nothing else. Hardly counter-productive.

There's more going on here than meets the eye or the press. You can be an armchair international relations expert all you want, but it just looks laughable.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
That would be viable if Iran were an island. It's not.

"Iran is the world’s fourth-largest oil exporter, and operates 25 supertankers which can each hold 2mn barrels (Dec. 2008). Iran’s state shipping company will take delivery of three new oil supertankers in the first-quarter of 2009, boosting its fleet by about 12%. Iran plans to increase the number of tankers to 38 by 2011. The new oil tankers will be built in South Korean shipyards. Iran pumps about 4mn barrels per day to world markets, with roughly 60% bound for Asia and the remaining headed to Europe (2008)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Shipping_Lines


It seems the majority of its oil leaves via shipping. A nation doesn't have to be an island to have a blockade do serious economic damage.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
There's more going on here than meets the eye or the press. You can be an armchair international relations expert all you want, but it just looks laughable.

Last I checked all anyone can do (and by extension, does) here is armchair; barring someone here having reliable access to classified information pertaining to foreign policy. That includes you btw, even if you're just armchairing that my armchairing is wrong. :)

Getting back on topic: Some action is always better than no action. Since you're implicitly claiming foreign policy expertise here, perhaps you could give me rough odds of China and/or Russia coming in soon enough to make a difference?
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,251
12,952
136
"Iran is the world’s fourth-largest oil exporter, and operates 25 supertankers which can each hold 2mn barrels (Dec. 2008). Iran’s state shipping company will take delivery of three new oil supertankers in the first-quarter of 2009, boosting its fleet by about 12%. Iran plans to increase the number of tankers to 38 by 2011. The new oil tankers will be built in South Korean shipyards. Iran pumps about 4mn barrels per day to world markets, with roughly 60% bound for Asia and the remaining headed to Europe (2008)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Shipping_Lines


It seems the majority of its oil leaves via shipping. A nation doesn't have to be an island to have a blockade do serious economic damage.

Setting up a blockade seems like a good way to start a war.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Last I checked all anyone can do (and by extension, does) here is armchair; barring someone here having reliable access to classified information pertaining to foreign policy. That includes you btw, even if you're just armchairing that my armchairing is wrong. :)

It is wrong.. because armchairing in a manner that calls for specific actions is wrong.

Getting back on topic: Some action is always better than no action. Since you're implicitly claiming foreign policy expertise here, perhaps you could give me rough odds of China and/or Russia coming in soon enough to make a difference?

I'm not claiming any expertise at all. I'm pointing out the lack of expertise everyone here has.. and that their criticisms of our foreign policy WRT Iran are pretty pointless as a result..
 
Last edited:

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
"Iran is the world’s fourth-largest oil exporter, and operates 25 supertankers which can each hold 2mn barrels (Dec. 2008). Iran’s state shipping company will take delivery of three new oil supertankers in the first-quarter of 2009, boosting its fleet by about 12%. Iran plans to increase the number of tankers to 38 by 2011. The new oil tankers will be built in South Korean shipyards. Iran pumps about 4mn barrels per day to world markets, with roughly 60% bound for Asia and the remaining headed to Europe (2008)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Shipping_Lines


It seems the majority of its oil leaves via shipping. A nation doesn't have to be an island to have a blockade do serious economic damage.

Iran can partner with a neighbor for shipment of its oil. A blockade would also be a threat of military action; action that Iran fully knows we're too stretched thin to carry out effectively. Is that the right signal to send? An empty threat?
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Guys, Iran is China's second largest supplier of oil.

China is currently the second largest holder of U.S. debt, used to be first just a few weeks ago.

It is not that hard to connect those kind of dots.

Keep in mind that Iran is the second largest oil exporter in OPEC. Remember them?

Oh, and while there has been a cutback in the petroleum products Russia is shipping to Iran (Russia trade with Iran is 1/10th the trade that China conducts anyway,) Russia has been actively pressing for Iran to market their oil and gas through the St. Petersburg Exchange. Iran currently trades only in non-dollar contracts, and Russia is one of several countries that has been advocating going away from dollar denominated trading in oil and gas. Russia is already the world's second largest oil exporter and securing trading rights for Iranian oil and gas would effectively allow them quite a bit more leverage.
 
Last edited:

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
It is wrong.. because armchairing in a manner that calls for specific actions is wrong.



I'm not claiming any expertise at all. I'm pointing out the lack of expertise everyone here has.. and that their criticisms of our foreign policy WRT Iran are pretty pointless as a result..

I'm just saying what I think should happen based on the information I have. So sue me, I never claimed any authority.

This is debate on an internet forum. Aside from a little education in the process, everything is pointless.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
I'm just saying what I think should happen based on the information I have. So sue me, I never claimed any authority.

Well, we all know what opinions are like...

This is debate on an internet forum. Aside from a little education in the process, everything is pointless.

Yup, everything is pointless.. including armchairing foreign policy.