As noted in last Friday's Round-Up, the House is getting set to vote on (and inevitably pass) the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA), probably next week. As also noted in the Round-Up, APN opposes this bill. We opposed it when it was introduced and have opposed it every step of the way. Our opposition has never been about timing or political considerations, but about principle: this is bad legislation. Well-intentioned, no doubt, but still bad.
Today we sent a message to every House office articulating, again, our opposition to the bill. In addition, we sent along a handy-dandy (or even fancy-shmancy) table laying out our specific concerns with the bill and suggested amendments.
Today we sent a message to every House office articulating, again, our opposition to the bill. In addition, we sent along a handy-dandy (or even fancy-shmancy) table laying out our specific concerns with the bill and suggested amendments.
We did this not because we naively expect the House to amend IRPSA at this juncture (indeed, it appears unlikely that the other committees of jurisdiction will be exercising their jurisdiction, and if the bill comes to the floor under suspension of the rules then no amendments will be permitted).
We did this because after reading all the articles, blogposts, and press releases, and after (many many) conversations with Hill staff, colleagues from other groups, diplomats, and pundits, it seems clear that hardly anyone has actually read the bill or understands what it says (or would do if passed into law).
We did this because we hope our analysis will inform and assist the Senate when it takes up IRPSA, as it is expected to do, sometime next year. And we hope that, assuming the bill moves forward and there is a House-Senate conference to iron out the differences between the two versions of the bill, that our analysis will inform and assist conferees in making smart decisions.
And we did this to directly answer the question "if you don't support IRPSA, what do you support?"
The answer being: we support legislation that genuinely strengthens the US President in his efforts to deal with the challenge of Iran - not legislation that undermines his authority and forces his hand.
As I told one staffer, it is the difference between giving the President a gun and saying it is up to him if he uses it, and forcing a gun into his hand and setting that gun to shoot automatically. And yes, there is some waiver authority in IRPSA, but politically that is like saying to the President "Sir, you are going to have to shoot - but if you want I guess you can throw your own Administration in front of the bullet."
Tweet
Buzz
8/23 
With U.S. forces already bogged down in two wars in the Middle East and Israel lacking the weaponry to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure by itself, the best ways to avoid the development of an Iranian nuclear option are through a grand deal or through sanctions. Iran's biggest strategic vulnerability is its lack of petroleum refinement capacity. Washington could use sanctions with popular consequences as a way of pushing the population further against the regime and forcing it to negotiate seriously. This is Washington's best card and it should be played.
As an Iranian American I thank you for being one of the few voices of reason. These sanctions DO NOT work. It hurts the Iranian people, not the regime.
Dr. Mitchell - thank you for you for your comment, but you are in a small minority if you believe that refined petroleum sanctions are going to work. As Matt Duss over at Think Progress has observed, "no one in Washington — on the right or left — seriously argues it will actually work to change Iran’s behavior." Read more of his excellent summary of how this has played out politically in this town at http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/08/iran-sanctions-bill/ and at http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/03/rep-berman-iran-sanctions/
Dr. Mitchell,
May I ask when sanctions have worked in the past? I remember sanctions against Iraq doing nothing to damage Saddam Hussein (although I was pretty young at the time), and I remember the Israeli economic blockade of Gaza actually strengthening groups like Hamas. The fundamental philosophy of sanctions seems to me erroneous - it is ridiculous to expect a population to blame their own government for the actions of another, even if their own government caused the sanctions through truculence. People who are starving tend not to think that logically, as it is hard to be objective and pay attention to the laws of syllogism when one cannot find bread.
I believe that Israel absolutely has the weaponry necessary to destroy not only Iran's nuclear facilities, but most of the Middle East. They are, after all, a nuclear power, the only one in the region. The "David vs. Goliath" myth of Israeli weakness and vulnerability in a sea of "more powerful" Arab countries only perpetuates that country's belligerent attitude towards its neighbors, which is one of many obstacles to peace. This defensive attitude also precludes any development in the Zionist identity, and we need development if we want peace.