By Steve Hynd
Notorious neocon reporter Eli Lake, once of the failed NY Sun and now at the failing Washington Times, has a lurid bit of hackery today on the subject of Iran sanctions and the Obama administration.
The Obama administration is pressing Congress to provide an exemption from Iran sanctions to companies based in "cooperating countries," a move that likely would exempt Chinese and Russian concerns from penalties meant to discourage investment in Iran.
..."It's incredible the administration is asking for exemptions, under the table and winking and nodding, before the legislation is signed into law," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican and a conference committee member, said in an interview. A White House official confirmed Wednesday that the administration was pushing the conference committee to adopt the exemption of "cooperating countries" in the legislation.
The implication of Lake's piece is that Obama is being a surrender monkey, kowtowing to Russia and China while allowing them to aid the perfidious Iranians. And that's exactly how the wingnuts are taking it. But Lake leaves his real zinger for the very end:
All past sanctions against Iran have included a waiver that lets the president refrain from penalizing foreign companies that are doing business with Iran.
That includes Bush, wingnuts. But Lake doesn't intend making that explicit - it's all Barry's fault!!!eleventy!1!
It's fairly obvious why the administration still wants that ability to waiver its predecessors had - in the great scheme of things Iran's attempt to take the Japan Option just isn't that important. Not just China and Russia, but India and Pakistan, Iraq, Brazil, the UAE and at least three NATO allies trade with Iran. There are all kinds of other foreign policy issues, from the occupation in Afghanistan to the expected renegotiation of the NPT where the White House might not want to alienate allies it will need over such a relatively paltry matter.
In fact, if the White House was being honest instead of playing Iran hawk for domestic political reasons, it would admit sanctions are unnecessary in any case.
Why don't you quote the lines that followed the part about previous sanctions?
ReplyDelete"The "cooperating countries" language that the White House is pressing would allow the executive branch to designate countries as cooperating with the overall strategy to pressure Iran economically.
According to three congressional staffers familiar with the White House proposal, once a country is on that list, the administration wouldn't even have to identify companies from that country as selling gasoline or aiding Iran's refinement industry.
Even if, as current law allows, the administration can waive the penalties on named companies for various reasons, the "cooperating countries" language would deprive the sanctions of their "name-and-shame" power, the staffers said.
The prospect that China and Chinese firms would be exempt from penalty follows reports that Beijing is cooperating with Iran's missile program. On April 23, Jane's Defense Weekly reported that China broke ground on a plant in Iran this month that will build the Nasr-1 anti-ship missile."
And? This isn't really any different from the language in Bush-era sanctions, is it?
ReplyDeleteIt might be more productive to talk about why anyone would think it was legal to sanction a nation pursuing the Japan Option (within the NPT) at all, especially when other nations outwith the NPT have nukes but no sanctions.
This is just another situation where the WH knows what is right but is playing games for purely domestic political reasons. The administration wants sanctions mainly to defuse domestic rightwing catcalls of being appeasers, and is discovering that the right will find a way to continue those catcalls no matter what.
Regards, Steve
It is different than the Bush era sanctions in that it would remove what Congress hopes is a requirement to at least name and shame companies working with Iran. Yes under all sanctions bills there have been waivers on enforcement, but this would be a waiver on designation. Also the story has plenty of voices criticizing the approach.
ReplyDelete