NY Jewish Week: "Iran Sanctions, the Left Wing split and fears about nuclear containment"

I just finished writing another Iran story, and space issues forced me to leave out one interesting element: the emerging split between Jewish pro-peace process groups over Iran sanctions.

This week J Street, the lobby and political action committee that remains the punching bag of choice of Jewish conservatives, announced it is now supporting the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which will impose sanctions on companies that help Iran obtain refined petroleum products.

Several months ago, the group was arguing that the time wasn't right for sanctions; now, mirroring an emerging shift in Obama administration policy, J Street director Jeremy Ben-Ami says it is.

"J Street has consistently supported President Obama in his efforts to engage Iran diplomatically and to resolve issues relating to its nuclear program through negotiations," he said in a statement. "However, in the face of Iran's continued defiance of the international community and its rejection of the most recent diplomatic offer on nuclear enrichment, we believe the time has come to pass the Iran sanctions legislation currently pending in the House of Representatives."

Critics further to the left quickly filled the blogosphere with charges that J Street switched positions to curry favor with a pro-Israel establishment that has, for the most part, shunned it, but others say the change reflects a growing consensus that diplomatic outreach has failed and that the time has come for sterner action.

Americans for Peace Now staked out a different position. The group said it can't support the current sanctions measure without sweeping revisions "to focus the legislation on smart, targeted sanctions rather than on 'crippling' sanctions that inflict widespread suffering on the Iranian people."

The measure is "akin to using a chainsaw when a scalpel is in order," said APN President and CEO Debra DeLee. "The threat posed by Iran cannot be bludgeoned away. It calls for a careful and delicate approach."

Well, right. But "careful and delicate" isn't what Congress does best, especially in matters involving pro--Israel political interests.

But the the split on the left isn't what really interests me right now. As I wrote this week, the sanctions fight has a peculiar quality to it.

Publicly , most major Jewish and pro-Israel groups have made passage of tougher U.S. sanctions a priority, even if other countries aren't on board. Privately, many of their leaders acknowledge that making sanctions work is a tall order even if countries like China and Russia get on board. Tehran's leaders have become adept at sidestepping sanctions; after all, they've had years of experience. And they something others desperately want - oil.

But these same Jewish leaders say, basically, that there aren't many other choices, so sanctions are worth a try. And you can't sit back and do nothing as Iran generates the material and technology to make A-bombs, and as its crazy president continues to threaten Israel.

More and more, I think the real engine driving the sanctions train is the fear that Washington, bereft of good options in Iran, will ultimately opt for a policy of containment, much like U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

And it's here that U.S. and Israeli interests may diverge in a way we haven't seen in a long time.

For Washington, a nuclear Iran is bad, but it's not an immediate existential threat. And we survived almost 40 years under the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction in the Cold War.

No American leader will opt for a policy of containment, but we have the luxury of tolerating it if all else fails, and we're faced with an Iranian nuclear fait accompli. As negotiations fail and if and when sanctions fail, at least we have that to fall back on.

But containment is a profoundly unsettling concept to Israel.

Sure, Israel's alleged nuclear stockpile will serve as a deterrent; no doubt Israeli strategic planners are working on second-strike scenarios.

But tiny, vulnerable Israel isn't big enough to absorb even one nuclear hit. There's no margin for error for the Jewish state when it comes to a nuclear Iran.

That's the big fear gripping Jewish leaders here: that the depressing logic of containment will eventually lead America to concede the inevitability of Iran's nuclear arsenal and focus instead on developing strategies for dealing with it.

I can understand how there are situations in which that will look like the best available strategy to policymakers here in Washington. I can also understand why Israeli leaders are unlikely to accept that, and why their supporters here are desperately hoping there are alternative U.S. policies that may actually work.

With military action essentially off the table because U.S. forces are already overextended with two wars and our treasury is essentially depleted and with Iran uninterested in serious diplomacy, sanctions sure look good, even with the obvious shortcomings of the strategy.

http://jewish-politics-ny.com/2009/12/08/iran-sanctions-the-left-wing-split-and-fears-about-nuclear-containment/


IPS: "US: One Step Closer to Unilateral Sanctions Against Iran"

Eli Clifton

WASHINGTON, Dec 9 (IPS) - Congress has given new momentum to a bill imposing unilateral sanctions on Iran - a move seen by many as an ineffective form of sanctions and potentially antagonistic against valuable U.S. allies on the U.N. Security Council. This comes ahead of the end of the year deadline set by U.S. President Barack Obama for Tehran to respond to a proposed agreement to export most of its enriched uranium for processing in Russia and France.

The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA) will likely pass the House sometime next week and - if the Senate passes its version of the legislation - would expand economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic, restricting U.S. loans that aid Iran's petroleum industry.

This bill would prevent the Export-Import Bank of the United States, "from providing credit, insurance, or guarantees to any project controlled by any energy producers or refiners that contribute significantly to Iran's refined petroleum resources," according to the Congressional Research Service.

Critics of the House bill - which is sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) - charge that it will: hurt the Iranian people while having little effect on the leadership sanctions are supposed to put pressure on; undermine the Obama administration's attempts at engagement with Iran under a multilateral negotiating framework; and isolate the U.S. by antagonising crucial allies in the UN Security Council.

While a House version of the bill has been expected to pass the before the body adjourns later this month, a decision by the Senate to "hotline" the bill - a move, where barring any objections, the bill will be brought to the floor and passed without debate, without amendment, and without a roll-call vote - took many observers by surprise yesterday.

"The way it's drafted will have significant ripple effects on Export-Import Bank's ability to co-finance transactions in a number of locations. As far as we can tell congress gave little or no thought to what would happen if this bill was enacted," Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, told IPS.

"We've always thought that the way to avoid this type of problem is multilaterally. We support what the president is trying to do," Reinsch continued. "He is trying to engage the Iranians in a dialogue and at the same time build multilateral support for that dialogue and sanctions. The only economic pressure that would have an impact would be multilateral. If you can't bring Russia and China into the fold it won't accomplish anything."

Indeed, under the proposed sanctions legislation the U.S. would sanction a number of companies which export gasoline to Iran or buy Iranian imports. These companies would likely include a number of state-owned companies from countries which wield vetoes in the U.N. Security Council.

The possibility that the sanctions legislation would hurt the Obama administration's attempts at engagement, multilateral negotiations and sanctions, and fail to include some of Iran's biggest trading partners has left some analysts concerned that if the House and Senate pass their bills the U.S. will ultimately be drawn closer to a confrontation with the Islamic Republic.

"I think that we've never seen unilateral sanction on Iran work so the fact that we're going down this path before the deadline is in my view problematic. It gives the impression we're dying to go to sanctions," Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, told IPS.

"Even while the Iranian people stood up this past summer and showed a tremendous courage, the sanctions proposed by congress - and even lawmakers admit - will put hardship on the Iranian people. More than anything else it can send the signal that while we say we sympathise with the Iranian people or stand with them it is more empty rhetoric than real substance," Parsi concluded.

American Jewish groups have experienced a split over the Iran sanctions issue as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and J Street - the new "pro-Israel, pro-peace" advocacy group - have endorsed the sanctions legislation.

"Passage of this bill by Congress will highlight for the Iranian Government the choice they must make between one path that leads to further isolation and another that leads to full integration in the international community and the ability to develop their economy to its full potential," said J Street Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami in a statement Monday.

But Americans for Peace Now (APN) split with J Street and AIPAC and denounced the sanctions legislation as, "reflect[ing] a misguided and potentially self-defeating approach for the U.S. to the challenge posed by Iran's nuclear programme.''

"We strongly urge Senators to object to this attempt to short-circuit debate [and potential amendments] and fast-track a piece of complex and far- reaching legislation - legislation that would impact virtually every aspect of and every option for U.S. policy toward Iran now and in the future," said APN in a letter sent to all Senate offices after the move to "hotline'" the sanctions bill was announced yesterday.

"I think that Peace Now's position is pretty much where the progressive's are. J Street has its reasons for taking its positions but there isn't much doubt in my mind that you won't find more than a tiny percentage of Jewish progressive's who agree with it. It's a very controversial position they have," Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America - and former AIPAC staffer - MJ Rosenberg told IPS.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49614