WASHINGTON - United States President Barack Obama's efforts to gain greater
flexibility in dealing with Iran received a small but potentially important
boost on Tuesday when a key congressional committee announced that the deadline
for a unilateral US sanctions package would be put off until next month.
The Democratic co-chairs of the "conference committee" charged with reconciling
competing versions of a sweeping sanctions bill passed by the two legislative
chambers earlier this year said the new deadline for congressional passage of a
final bill will be the end of June rather than this week.
"We have always said that tough multilateral sanctions are the most effective
means to persuade Iran to cease its efforts to
develop a nuclear weapons capacity," Senator Christopher Dodd and
Representative Howard Berman told reporters.
"With the progress in negotiations at the [United Nations] Security Council, we
believe that our overriding goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear
weapons capability is best served by providing a limited amount of time for
those efforts - and expected follow-on action by the EU [European Union] at its
mid-June summit - to reach a successful conclusion before we send our bill to
the president," they added.
They were referring to last week's announcement by US Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton that the five permanent members (Permanent-Five) of the
Security Council - Britain, France, Russia and China, as well as the US - had
reached agreement on a fourth round of sanctions on Iran, which Washington says
is expected to be approved next month.
While falling far short of the much harsher sanctions originally sought by the
US and Britain, the proposed package includes penalties for companies or banks
allegedly involved in Iran's nuclear program or in helping it obtain heavy
conventional weapons. It also authorizes countries to inspect ships they
believe may be carrying banned cargo to or from Iran.
More important to the administration, however, is that the package's approval
will help highlight what in their view is Iran's increasing international
isolation, as well as provide multilateral "cover" for much stronger unilateral
sanctions - such as those already approved by the two congressional chambers -
by the US and its closest allies, including the EU and Japan.
The Obama administration had been concerned that passage now of a tough
unilateral sanctions bill - particularly one that doesn't give the president
the authority to waive sanctions on companies from key countries, such as China
- could undercut its efforts to rally international support at the Security
Council.
It remains uncertain, however, whether the package touted by Clinton will be
further watered down - or indeed even approved - between now and the end of
next month.
Last week's agreement between Iran, Turkey and Brazil on a plan for Tehran to
ship roughly half of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium to Turkey for
reprocessing, a variation on a proposal put forward by the P-5 and Germany last
October, has raised the possibility of a new round of negotiations between Iran
and the "Iran Six".
Washington has so far appeared to reject the deal as an effort to derail the
sanctions drive at the Security Council; Clinton herself described it as a
"ploy" during a brief exchange with the press in Beijing on Tuesday.
But both Turkey and Brazil, non-permanent Security Council members, have
embarked on a diplomatic campaign to gain support for the proposal, which, they
insist, would eliminate the need for additional sanctions now.
Baked by Turkey and Brazil, Iran formally submitted the plan to the so-called
"Vienna Group" - the US, Russia, France and the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) - on Monday for its reaction.
Anything less than a complete rejection - which hawks in congress and within
the Obama administration reportedly favor - could effectively open a new round
of negotiations over Iran's nuclear program that would make swift action by the
Security Council less likely.
The latest developments on the sanctions front come amid a flurry of reports
that are likely to heighten tensions with Iran and possibly strengthen hardline
factions there.
This week Debka, a news service with close links to the Israeli intelligence
community, reported that the Obama administration had ordered a "massive US
sir-sea-marine build-up" in the Mediterranean and Gulf regions, suggesting that
it was part of a plan to ratchet up military pressure on Iran. Pentagon sources
denied that the deployment detailed by Debka was anything more than routine
rotation.
At the same time, however, Washington confirmed that it planned to upgrade an
air base in southwestern Afghanistan only 30 kilometers from the Iranian border
over the next year in what influential mainstream commentator, Michael O'Hanlon
of the Brookings Institution, predicted would be seen as a provocation by Iran.
On Tuesday, the New York Times disclosed that chief of the US Central Command
General David Petraeus had ordered a broad expansion of covert military
operations throughout his region - which includes the entire Middle East,
Central Asia and the Horn of Africa, including Iran - last September.
The directive "appears to authorize specific operations in Iran, most likely to
gather intelligence about the country's nuclear program or identify dissident
groups that might be useful for a future military offensive," the Times
reported.
The story has given rise to a flurry of speculation about its provenance and
intent - that is, whether the leak on which it was based was authorized at the
highest levels of the administration or whether it was provided by officials
unhappy with the directive for bureaucratic reasons, such as protesting the
military's encroachment into areas traditionally overseen by the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), or for policy reasons.
"In any event, it's certainly going to make an impression on the Iranians,"
said Gary Sick, a Columbia University professor who worked on Iran in the White
House in the 1970s and early 1980s.
He suggested the leak will likely not only increase suspicions about US
intentions toward Tehran and make it more difficult for the two countries to
engage diplomatically, but it could also undermine efforts to rally support for
sanctions at the Security Council.
"I can't see how this helps the administration unless it's designed to show
congress how tough it is on Iran, that it's doing a lot of things congress
doesn't know about, and that therefore congress shouldn't enact sanctions
without giving the president a lot of flexibility [in applying them]," he said.
"I don't think that's a very likely explanation, but it's conceivable."
Jim Lobe's blog on US foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
