Lawmakers considering new, unprecedented Iran sanctions

WASHINGTON (AP) - Lawmakers are working on a set of new and unprecedented Iran sanctions that could prevent the Islamic republic from doing business with most of the world until it agrees to international constraints on its nuclear program, officials say.
The bipartisan financial and trade restrictions amount to a "complete sanctions regime" against Tehran, according to one congressional aide involved in the process. But it could put the Obama administration in a difficult position with allies who are still trading with Iran, but whom the U.S. needs if it is to secure a peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff.
On Thursday, in its first foreign policy announcement since the president's re-election, the administration targeted four Iranian officials and five organizations with sanctions for jamming satellite broadcasts and blocking Internet access for Iranian citizens.
But the measures that Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., want to attach to a defense bill would be far more sweeping. They would target everything from Iranian assets overseas to all foreign goods that the country imports, building on the tough sanctions package against Tehran's oil industry that the two lawmakers pushed through earlier this year, congressional aides and people involved in the process said. Those earlier measures already have cut Iran's petroleum exports in half and hobbled its economy.
Yet even as the value of its currency has dropped precipitously against the dollar in a year, sparking an economic depression and massive public discontent, Iran's leadership has yet to bite on an offer from world powers for an easing of sanctions in exchange for several compromises over its nuclear program. To break the logjam, the administration is brainstorming ways to make the offer more attractive for the Iranians without granting any new concessions that would reward the regime for its intransigence, according to administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
Escalating the sanctions, the measure's supporters say, could accelerate the point to which the Iranian economy is bankrupt, forcing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to give ground in the nuclear negotiations. Supporters say they hope Iran's oil-inflated foreign currency reserves are depleted before it has the capacity to produce nuclear weapons-grade material, which Israel and others say could be as soon as August 2013.
The United States and other world powers have been trying to gauge whether a negotiated solution is possible with Iran. Washington and many of its European and Arab partners fear Iran is trying to develop nuclear warheads, even if Iran insists that the program is solely designed for peaceful energy and medical research purposes. The Obama administration says military options should only be a last resort and has pressed Israel to hold off on any plans for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
But tensions between the U.S. and Iran remain high, a fact underlined by the Pentagon's revelation Thursday that an Iranian military plane fired on, but missed, an unarmed U.S. drone aircraft a week ago. The incident occurred in international airspace over the Persian Gulf, Pentagon spokesman George Little said.
A prominent Iranian parliament member said Friday that the drone violated Iran's airspace a week ago, when the Pentagon says it was fired on. The U.S. maintains the pilotless craft was over international waters. Lawmaker Mohammad Saleh Jokar told state-owned yjc.ir news website that Iranian fighters shot at the U.S. drone because it had entered Iranian airspace.
"Violation of the airspace of Iran was the reason for shooting at the American drone," Mohammad Saleh Jokar was quoted as saying. "This showed Iran has the necessary readiness to defend against any invasion."
Despite no progress in the nuclear talks, administration officials say the contours of any diplomatic solution are clear: U.S., European and other international sanctions would be eased if Iran halts its enrichment of uranium that is getting closer to weapons-grade, ships out its existing stockpile of such uranium and suspends operations at its underground Fordo facility.
The sanctions being considered by Kirk, Menendez and others represent the flip side to increased engagement but don't necessarily work against the administration's effort. They could, in fact, be an effective threat of even worse economic pressure to come that Obama's negotiators can use against Tehran.
Whereas last year's sanctions went after oil exports, Iran's primary source of revenue, the new approach focuses on the agricultural, industrial and consumer goods the country imports to ensure manufacturing capacity and the basic functioning of its economy, the congressional aides and others involved said.
Companies from Europe, Asia and elsewhere selling machinery and other products to Iran would have to stop or face being cut off from the U.S. market. Banks whose clients are making transactions with Iran would face a similar penalty if they don't break off relations. And Iranian assets in financial institutions overseas would have to be frozen.
There would be exemptions. The plan envisioned by Kirk and other senators wouldn't affect food, medicine and democracy-promotion goods such as communications equipment, officials said. The 20 countries that have been granted exemptions by the Obama administration to purchase decreasing levels of petroleum from Iran would be permitted to continue doing so.
Kirk prefers providing no new waiver authority for the administration that might allow Germany, for example, to continue selling machine tools or China to continue exporting cheap merchandise to Iran as long as they make significant reductions in the total value of their transactions. The administration likely would demand such flexibility so it can persuade its international partners to get on board, as it did with the petroleum sanctions. Menendez and others in the Senate are considering how to provide them that flexibility, people familiar with the different plans said.
Congress has overwhelmingly backed previous efforts by Kirk and Menendez, but the fate of the Senate's defense policy bill is uncertain.
Democrats and Republicans have pressed for the Senate to take it up in the lame-duck session that begins Tuesday, but Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., wants both sides to agree on limiting the number of amendments, which could exceed 100. It's unclear whether the two parties can reach agreement. As an alternative, the Senate may simply vote on a pared-back, noncontroversial bill that has been worked out in advance with the House.
Mark Dubowitz, a sanctions expert and executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, described the wider economic offensive against Iran as much-needed. Existing sanctions have done damage but Iran still has enough in reserves to remain solvent until mid-2014, well after Tehran could cross the "red line" of nuclear progress as outlined by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and embraced by some in Congress.
Even if Iran's petroleum exports have declined to 1 million barrels a day from last year's level of 2.5 million barrels a day, Dubowitz said, the government would pull in $37 billion in revenue next year - assuming a market rate of about $100 a barrel. "We're still a long way from an economic cripple date," he cautioned.
The bipartisan financial and trade restrictions amount to a "complete sanctions regime" against Tehran, according to one congressional aide involved in the process. But it could put the Obama administration in a difficult position with allies who are still trading with Iran, but whom the U.S. needs if it is to secure a peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff.
On Thursday, in its first foreign policy announcement since the president's re-election, the administration targeted four Iranian officials and five organizations with sanctions for jamming satellite broadcasts and blocking Internet access for Iranian citizens.
But the measures that Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., want to attach to a defense bill would be far more sweeping. They would target everything from Iranian assets overseas to all foreign goods that the country imports, building on the tough sanctions package against Tehran's oil industry that the two lawmakers pushed through earlier this year, congressional aides and people involved in the process said. Those earlier measures already have cut Iran's petroleum exports in half and hobbled its economy.
Yet even as the value of its currency has dropped precipitously against the dollar in a year, sparking an economic depression and massive public discontent, Iran's leadership has yet to bite on an offer from world powers for an easing of sanctions in exchange for several compromises over its nuclear program. To break the logjam, the administration is brainstorming ways to make the offer more attractive for the Iranians without granting any new concessions that would reward the regime for its intransigence, according to administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
Escalating the sanctions, the measure's supporters say, could accelerate the point to which the Iranian economy is bankrupt, forcing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to give ground in the nuclear negotiations. Supporters say they hope Iran's oil-inflated foreign currency reserves are depleted before it has the capacity to produce nuclear weapons-grade material, which Israel and others say could be as soon as August 2013.
The United States and other world powers have been trying to gauge whether a negotiated solution is possible with Iran. Washington and many of its European and Arab partners fear Iran is trying to develop nuclear warheads, even if Iran insists that the program is solely designed for peaceful energy and medical research purposes. The Obama administration says military options should only be a last resort and has pressed Israel to hold off on any plans for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.
But tensions between the U.S. and Iran remain high, a fact underlined by the Pentagon's revelation Thursday that an Iranian military plane fired on, but missed, an unarmed U.S. drone aircraft a week ago. The incident occurred in international airspace over the Persian Gulf, Pentagon spokesman George Little said.
A prominent Iranian parliament member said Friday that the drone violated Iran's airspace a week ago, when the Pentagon says it was fired on. The U.S. maintains the pilotless craft was over international waters. Lawmaker Mohammad Saleh Jokar told state-owned yjc.ir news website that Iranian fighters shot at the U.S. drone because it had entered Iranian airspace.
"Violation of the airspace of Iran was the reason for shooting at the American drone," Mohammad Saleh Jokar was quoted as saying. "This showed Iran has the necessary readiness to defend against any invasion."
Despite no progress in the nuclear talks, administration officials say the contours of any diplomatic solution are clear: U.S., European and other international sanctions would be eased if Iran halts its enrichment of uranium that is getting closer to weapons-grade, ships out its existing stockpile of such uranium and suspends operations at its underground Fordo facility.
The sanctions being considered by Kirk, Menendez and others represent the flip side to increased engagement but don't necessarily work against the administration's effort. They could, in fact, be an effective threat of even worse economic pressure to come that Obama's negotiators can use against Tehran.
Whereas last year's sanctions went after oil exports, Iran's primary source of revenue, the new approach focuses on the agricultural, industrial and consumer goods the country imports to ensure manufacturing capacity and the basic functioning of its economy, the congressional aides and others involved said.
Companies from Europe, Asia and elsewhere selling machinery and other products to Iran would have to stop or face being cut off from the U.S. market. Banks whose clients are making transactions with Iran would face a similar penalty if they don't break off relations. And Iranian assets in financial institutions overseas would have to be frozen.
There would be exemptions. The plan envisioned by Kirk and other senators wouldn't affect food, medicine and democracy-promotion goods such as communications equipment, officials said. The 20 countries that have been granted exemptions by the Obama administration to purchase decreasing levels of petroleum from Iran would be permitted to continue doing so.
Kirk prefers providing no new waiver authority for the administration that might allow Germany, for example, to continue selling machine tools or China to continue exporting cheap merchandise to Iran as long as they make significant reductions in the total value of their transactions. The administration likely would demand such flexibility so it can persuade its international partners to get on board, as it did with the petroleum sanctions. Menendez and others in the Senate are considering how to provide them that flexibility, people familiar with the different plans said.
Congress has overwhelmingly backed previous efforts by Kirk and Menendez, but the fate of the Senate's defense policy bill is uncertain.
Democrats and Republicans have pressed for the Senate to take it up in the lame-duck session that begins Tuesday, but Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., wants both sides to agree on limiting the number of amendments, which could exceed 100. It's unclear whether the two parties can reach agreement. As an alternative, the Senate may simply vote on a pared-back, noncontroversial bill that has been worked out in advance with the House.
Mark Dubowitz, a sanctions expert and executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, described the wider economic offensive against Iran as much-needed. Existing sanctions have done damage but Iran still has enough in reserves to remain solvent until mid-2014, well after Tehran could cross the "red line" of nuclear progress as outlined by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and embraced by some in Congress.
Even if Iran's petroleum exports have declined to 1 million barrels a day from last year's level of 2.5 million barrels a day, Dubowitz said, the government would pull in $37 billion in revenue next year - assuming a market rate of about $100 a barrel. "We're still a long way from an economic cripple date," he cautioned.
This guy is shooting at our drones over International Waters and we're going to lay more useless sanctions on him..... Wow..... I honestly don't care that he may or may not be building nukes. Truth be told, sanctions mean nothing to him, China and Russia have been doing very well for Iran. They really aren't hurting that much. Also, if they REALLY wanted nukes that bad, Russia would be more than happy to sell some or trade for oil.Â
Â
I don't like this guy. I feel bad for the People of Iran under this guy, ALMOST as much as I feel bad for my fellow Americans under our own Government as it currently is. I don't trust him, but who am I to say he can't have a nuke? It's HIS country! I've no say in that. He wants to be rid of every Jew on the planet, or so I understand. Especially the Nation of Israel.... I DO have a problem with that! Who is Iran to threaten Israel? I suppose by Anti Semites way of thinking that the United States shouldn't be here either, or England, or any other Modern Day Country, being that they believe the land Israel is on was stolen from the Arabs or some such thing. They seem to forget that Jews were in Jerusalem when Romans ruled that area. So by that, their land was given back to them, yes?Â
I wish our government could stop minding the rest of the world's affairs and remember that we have a litany of problems of our own within our borders. Crime, economy, healthcare, homelessness, the list goes on.
But never mind that, go on and provoke another country and invade it.
Yes, because a 21st century Treaty of Versailles is such a good idea.
Â
"Washington and many of its European and Arab partners fear Iran is trying to develop nuclear warheads, even if Iran insists that the program is solely designed for peaceful energy and medical research purposes."
Â
Typical he-said, she-said garbage from the AP. Missing from this fine article are the following facts: "No evidence has been presented to support the assertion that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Furthermore, Iran is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its nuclear facilities are under constant monitoring by the IAEA, unlike nuclear-armed Israel."
 @Sutekh "Furthermore, Iran is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its nuclear facilities are under constant monitoring by the IAEA, unlike nuclear-armed Israel.""
Â
LOL oh boy so funny, "its nuclear facilities are under constant monitoring by the IAEA," that is rich.
 @Gaikokujin I'm not sure what you're laughing at, unless it's your own ignorance.
Â
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/index.shtml
Â
 @Sutekh  @Gaikokujin Yes and in terms of compliance with the NPT,  the US has always been out of compliance and under the treaty has no justification or authority  for acts of war against another country like murdering Iranian scientists or falsely accusing them of 911 or inducing economic sanctions. These are nothing less then unlawful acts of aggresion against a country that has not attacked anyone in over 200 years by a country that never seems  able to curb its desire for war.
Â
Lets be honest here. North Korea threatens us all the time with real nukes, why dont we do anything to them? Could it be the lack of oil and therefore interest by big oil that directs us away from NK?Â
Â
Now that the election is over, its full steam ahead toward another war and the continued theft of resources from the citizens that rightfully own their country´s resources simply to keep US and foreign big oil happy. If you dont recognize this as nothing more than fascism by jack booted  corporate thugs that control a government, then you are part of the problem and are supporting the murder of innocent families and the waste of our own children that serve endlessly as BP´s cannon fodder.Â
Â
Dont let them make fools of you again like they have for the last decade. The US has done everything in its power to induce war and the still peaceful Iranians have not done anything. If this peace contiues, watch for the US to attack Syria in hopes of Iran upholding the mutual protection agreement by and between Syria and Iran.Â
Â
We are going to war to steal resources, exploit labor and to put a McDonalds in Iran and they dont care how many of your kids die or are maimed as long as they get rich doing it.Â
They keep this up there is going to be a new landmark representing stupidity and the inability for people to get along with others!
Reported in the press yesterday, Iran has slowed down the process to enrich sufficient uranium to arm nuclear weapons.
Exert all pressure possible short of military action.
It may work...if it does not the Hawks and religious fundamentals (Evagelicals, Mormons et al) will have their long awaited armageddon.
In my opinion Iran's leadership could careless if their own people starve or suffer economically from increased sanctions. Iran continues to defy the United States in hopes of drawing us into a conflict. The hatred between Israel and Palestine will in addition be used by Iran to inflame conflict drawing several battle fronts pertaining to Israel. Israel needs to stand on their own two feet and make their choice without the United States making it for or with them. Why does the United States leadership continue to fund Israel? My thoughts because the United States leaders fear terrorism to the point of madness and wish to continue depleting our economy for more of a footing in the M.E. pertaining to security. How does any involvement by the United States in the M.E. improve our way of life?
 @Funky-Munky Pax Americana as outlined in PNAC is one theory. The other is naked fear of Funky-Munkys with a shotgun.
Blah, Blah, Blah! Russia and China will smack it down, yet again!
 @DarkParty I was thinking if the United States were to engage Iran in anyway China, Russia and others may be forced to reveal their alliance with Iran. (my opinion)
 @Funky-Munky My thought is that we are using sanctions as the least expensive way to engage Iran. We are trying to avoid another all out war that we can't afford. Would you want us to abandon our ally in the region?
 @Funky-Munky  @Darn it! unless the starving will rise up and kick the Mullahs out
 @Darn it! Yep, but I believe their "hate" of Americans keeps them warm at night. Maybe, the people will handle their leadership. Not sure how this will play out. Maybe Israel will make the first move regardless of the U.S. pressure involving increased sanctions. If that happens the U.S. will be faced with a choice.
 @Funky-Munky I probably did mis-read your post. Do you wonder if the common people of Iran are wondering how a nuclear weapon will put food in their bellies?
 @Darn it! I believe you misread my above post:
Â
In my opinion Iran's leadership could careless if their own people starve or suffer economically from increased sanctions. Iran continues to defy the United States in hopes of drawing us into a conflict. The hatred between Israel and Palestine will in addition be used by Iran to inflame conflict drawing several battle fronts pertaining to Israel. Israel needs to stand on their own two feet and make their choice without the United States making it for or with them. Why does the United States leadership continue to fund Israel? My thoughts because the United States leaders fear terrorism to the point of madness and wish to continue depleting our economy for more of a footing in the M.E. pertaining to security. How does any involvement by the United States in the M.E. improve our way of life?
 @Darn it! I am for avoiding war, but I also know full well sanctions only starve the everyday people and have little to no effect on their leadership.