You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
White House opposes Iran sanctions bill
2006-03-16
WASHINGTON, March 14 (Reuters) - The Bush administration has told lawmakers it opposes legislation to impose sanctions on foreign firms and countries working in Iran, but the lawmakers said on Tuesday they intended to advance the bill anyway. Florida Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a key sponsor of the measure, said she would not bow to the administration's demand for more flexibility in enforcing the sanctions.

The House of Representatives International Relations Committee is to consider the bill on Wednesday, despite the White House's opposition. Backers of the sanctions legislation said it would squeeze Iran's economy, strengthening the response to Tehran's pursuit of nuclear technology which the United States says could be used to make nuclear weapons.

The legislation would require U.S. sanctions on any company or nation investing more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector, and require U.S.-based pension funds to disclose Iran-related investment. The United States has long-standing sanctions barring American companies and individuals from doing business with Iran.

"Despite the fact that the bill affords the necessary flexibility to the president and despite my best efforts and those of Mr. Lantos to make changes to the legislation toward achieving a mutually acceptable agreement, the administration will not support (it)," said Ros-Lehtinen, who crafted the bill with Rep. Tom Lantos of California, top Democrat on the committee.

Because previous sanctions on Iran were waived under the Clinton administration "and due to the gravity of the Iran threat, we do not believe it would be beneficial to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests to weaken the legislation," Ros-Lehtinen said. Rep. Henry Hyde, the Illinois Republican who chairs the committee, will decide whether to support the bill based on "how the amending process develops," his spokesman said.
Posted by:Steve White

#6  The Congress likes to think they are taking action. Duh, wouldn't it be smart to work with the administration and the state department and furnish what they need to deal with Iran ?
This is a clue to what's wrong with our CIA and border patrol and port security and state department and tax system and property rights and energy plans and health care and social security and on and on.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-03-16 16:45  

#5  Well, Generals Ros-Lehtinen and Lantos say...
Posted by: Glert Thetch2165   2006-03-16 10:49  

#4  Must be an election year.
Posted by: GK   2006-03-16 10:43  

#3  Sanctions are a waste of time, paper, and ink. All these regimes are liars and cheats, it's the culture. And, it seems, the culture of some major European powers that are willing to enable regimes like Iran for 30 pieces of silver.

Glert is right on the mark. Nothing will stop the march of the M²s to nuclear holocaust except regime change. This whole thing is going to get a lot uglier before it gets better. the M²s don't give a rat's behind for their people---they will use them to achieve their ends. Look at the many thousands that they threw away against their war with Sammy.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2006-03-16 10:39  

#2  My opinion:
$5 will get you $50 that the only people who will be hurt by economic actions of any type would be Joe Persian. The Mullahs have cash running out their ears, total control when and where they want it, and 50+ countries who'd kill their mother to sell them anything they think they can get away with - for cash on the barrel-head.

In fact, only one thing will stop the Mullahs - regime change - and that's the ugly truth. You have to play with the hand actually dealt, not the one you wish you had.
Posted by: Glert Thetch2165   2006-03-16 01:41  

#1  Some creative ideas are starting to emerge, it appears. This one certainly presents some risks-especially economic ones-but I'm glad to see that we're not in the mindset that we must immediately choose between pushing UN sanctions and attacking Iran militarily (with no allied backing except Israel). I'd like to hear this bill fleshed out and hope even more ideas emerge.

Now I have to come back to reality, though-we all must. Even if this bill passed, how long before its effects were felt; and would those effects in any way prevent Iran from realizing its nuclear dream? And what of Iran's statements about Israel? Do we have that much faith that Iran won't act on its declaration to wipe Israel off the map? Do we have that much faith that even an Iran without Ahmedinejad would desire anything different?
Posted by: Jules   2006-03-16 01:06  

00:00