1.  Bills & Resolutions
2.  Iran and Israel in the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill (HOUSE)
3.  Iran and Israel in the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill (SENATE)
4.  Further Action on Iran Sanctions Deferred
5.  Feinstein Circulates Letter Supporting Peace Talks
6.  APN on Palestinian Boycott of Settlement Products

(Note: For anyone who missed Danny Seidemann and Greg Khalil on the Hill earlier this month talking about Jerusalem and proximity talks, you can watch their excellent presentations here.)

Today the House appointed representatives to the House-Senate conference on HR 2194 (which is now carrying the Senate-given name -- the "Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2009".)  This comes more than a month after the Senate amended the text of HR 2194 on March 11th - deleting the entire House text and inserting their own (the text of S. 2799) - and appointed its own conferees. 

While House appointees were formally appointed only today, it is well-known that over the past month House and Senate staff have been working to reconcile the bills.  It is also well-known that Administration officials have been weighing in to try to convince key members to accept what the Administration considers to be the minimum changes necessary to ensure the bill does not directly conflict with the President's Iran strategy and efforts.

Now that House conferees have been appointed, it is anticipated that the conference will formally conclude its work quickly - as indicated by House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA), who stated recently that he wanted Congress to pass the final version of the bill before the end of April.  UPDATED:  The motion to instruct that accompanied the appointment of House conferees stated that conferees were "to complete their work and present a conference report and joint explanatory statement by no later than May 28, 2010" -- potentially indicating that there will still be significant work completed in conference.

In response to today's events, APN sent a message to every conferee (House and Senate) - the message and the list of conferees is after the break.

This morning Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a much-anticipated speech at the AIPAC policy conference (full text after the break).  In her speech she emphasized the strength of the US-Israel bilateral relationship and made some crowd-pleasing comments about the US commitment to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons (though she pointedly did not endorse or even mention the "crippling" sanctions legislation that is AIPAC's top lobbying objective this week, instead focusing on the Administration's efforts to build support for multilateral sanctions). 

She also made some important, and probably less welcome, statements about the peace process, including:

On settlements and the settlement "moratorium":  "We also made clear that this was just a first step and, like every administration for decades, underscored that the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. As Israel's friend, it is our responsibility to give credit when it is due and to tell the truth when it is needed."

On the imperative to achieve peace:  "The conflict with the Palestinians and with Israel's Arab neighbors is an obstacle to prosperity and opportunity for Israelis, Palestinians, and people across the region. And it threatens Israel's long-term future as a secure and democratic Jewish state."

On the "demographic threat":  "As Defense Minister Barak and others have observed, the inexorable mathematics of demography are hastening the hour at which Israelis may have to choose between preserving their democracy and staying true to the dream of a Jewish homeland. Given this reality, a two-state solution is the only viable path for Israel to remain both a democracy and a Jewish state."

On the linkage between the conflict and extremism:  "The status quo strengthens the rejectionists who claim peace is impossible and weakens those who would accept coexistence. That does not serve Israel's interests or our own. Those willing to negotiate need to be able to show results for their efforts. And those who preach violence must be proven wrong. All of our regional challenges -- confronting the threat posed by Iran, combating violent extremism, promoting democracy and economic opportunity - become harder if rejectionists grow in power and influence. Conversely, a two state solution would allow Israel's contributions to the world, and to our greater humanity, to get the recognition they deserve; would allow the Palestinians to realize their own legitimate aspirations; and would undermine the appeal of extremism across the region."

Reiterating US "principles" and policy on final status:  "...we believe that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree to an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the '67 lines, with agreed swaps, and Israel's goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israel's security requirements."

Reiterating US "principles" and policy regarding Jerusalem:  "The United States recognizes that Jerusalem is a deeply important issue for Israelis and Palestinians, and for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. We believe that through good faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations of both parties for Jerusalem, and safeguards its status for people around the world.  For negotiations to be successful, they must be built on a foundation of mutual trust and confidence. That is why both Israelis and Palestinians must refrain from unilateral statements and actions that undermine the process or prejudice the outcome of talks."

Re-iterating US opposition to settlement construction in East Jerusalem:  "New construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermines mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need. It exposes daylight between Israel and the United States that others in the region could hope to exploit. And it undermines America's unique ability to play a role - an essential role, I might add -- in the peace process. Our credibility in this process depends in part on our willingness to praise both sides when they are courageous, and when we don't agree, to say so, and say so unequivocally."

My new piece on Iran and sanctions, published today on Foreign Policy's Middle East Channel...

Getting over the sanctions delusion

Recently I was talking with a friend from the military-intelligence world about the mounting pressure on Congress to pass the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act - legislation aimed at "crippling" Iran's civilian economy.  Reportedly a House-Senate conference is already informally underway trying to craft a consensus version of the bill, and last week AIPAC sent a message to every Member of Congress urging that IRPSA be enacted "without delay."

I explained that in my view sanctions aimed at civilians were a bad idea, and that sanctions in general, while a potentially powerful tool, do not, on their own constitute a policy.  My friend's  response? "Sanctions are the sign of a failed policy, period."

He makes a good point.  Fundamentally, sanctions are how the US tells a foreign government:  we don't like you, we can't convince you to see things our way, and we can't (or aren't ready to) overthrow you - so get ready to feel some pain.

An Iran armed with nuclear weapons represents an alarming scenario that neither the U.S. nor Israel, nor for that matter, the world, can afford to ignore, and one that the U.S. and the international community should be exerting all efforts to avoid. 

Congress is now considering two pieces of legislation that will limit the Iranian regime's ability to crack down on freedom of speech within Iran.

This is a great opportunity. Empowering the Iranian people must be a vital part of the American strategy to deal with the threat posed by Iran to Israel and to key American national security interests.

Former Secretary of State James Baker was interviewed February 21st on CNN by Fareed Zakaria.  The full transcript is available here.  Some gems from the interview:

Baker on Obama's Iran policy thus far:  "I think it's too soon to say everything has failed. I don't -- I think you keep doing what you're doing. In other words, I think what you need to do is keep pushing for stronger sanctions and keep talking to or being ready to talk to the Iranian leadership, if they're willing to talk.  Those things -- and support the reformers in the streets. Those three things. They're not mutually exclusive. It's exactly what we did for 40 years with the Soviet Union.  We talked to them about nuclear -- we negotiated arms control agreements. We supported the dissidents in the Soviet Union. We worked hard on Soviet-Jewish emigres to get them the right to leave. We met with dissidents when we would go over there as -- as Secretary of State.  And so there's no reason why we can't do all three of those things and continue to do them."

Those of us who oppose efforts to impose "crippling sanctions" on the Iranian people - an approach supported by many in Congress (and most of the Jewish community) are often belligerently asked: "if you don't support these sanctions, what is your alternative?"  The implication being that if we can't propose another course of action then we must support the crippling sanctions, even if nearly everyone agrees that such sanctions won't work and will likely prove counterproductive. 

This is of course a silly argument - imagine two doctors arguing about how to treat a patient: Doctor 1: "We've tried everything we can think of and he's not getting better, so I propose we try radiation."  Doctor 2: "Are you nuts?  Given his condition, all medical science points to the fact that radiation won't do anything to help him and will almost certainly make him worse"  Doctor 1:  "Well, unless you have a better idea you have no choice but to accept my recommendation." Doctor 2:  "Where did you get your medical degree??"

But imaginary dialogues aside, there are some sanctions that actually make sense.  For example, it seems self-evident that it makes sense to impose sanctions on those who are enabling Iran to block the internet, censor electronic communications, and otherwise interfere with the ability of Iranian citizens to communicate with each other and the outside world (anyone remember the term "twitter revolution?")

To which I think most people would reply: great idea!  Someone in Congress should get working on this!
 

In a statement Friday, Debra DeLee, president of Americans for Peace Now, urged that the bill be modified when members of the House and Senate meet to reconcile their respective versions of the legislation.

by Ali Gharib

WASHINGTON, Jan 29 (IPS) - In a surprisingly swift move on Thursday night that could have wide-ranging implications, the U.S. Senate passed a bill containing broad unilateral sanctions to punish foreign companies that export gasoline to Iran or help expand its domestic refinery capabilities.

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that Israel's Ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren -- yes, the same Michael Oren who apparently was deeply wounded (or many people were wounded on his behalf) by criticism leveled at him by President Obama's new Antisemitism envoy Hannah Rosenthal, who callously suggested (in response to a question) that it was "unfortunate" when Oren publicly and quite un-diplomatically told the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism's biennial convention that J Street  is "a unique problem" -- is now in the business of telling President Obama what the next steps for the US on Iran should be.  JPost reports: 

"The next step, according to Ambassador to the US Michael Oren, should be 'imposing crippling sanctions' on the Teheran regime, which is in keeping with the pledge Oren said Obama made to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in May that the US would end the engagement phase toward Iran if it were unsuccessful by year's end. Oren told The Jerusalem Post that 'there isn't an Israeli view and an American view' on the Iranian question, but rather 'one view.'"

Never mind that the Administration has made clear it doesn't like the "crippling sanctions" Oren is referring to -- sanctions more commonly known as the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA) and being energetically pushed by most of the organized Jewish community (pretty much everyone but APN).  

And never mind that Oren appears to be at odds with his bosses in his call for these "crippling sanctions," since Israeli officials reportedly are on board with the Obama Administration's efforts to pursue multilateral sanctions.

And never mind that Obama did not come close to making any such "pledge" to Bibi in May.