February 07-2014
. . . no sanctions please
Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has gone on record as opposing any new sanctions on Iran as long as talks on a nuclear agreement continue.
Clinton said the world accepted harsh sanctions on Iran only when countries came to the conclusion that it was Iran, not the United States, that was the impediment to a nuclear settlement. For the United States to impose new sanctions now could well reverse the view as to who is at fault, she argued,
Clinton outlined her position in a three-page letter to Sen. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, who had asked for her opinion. He released Clinton’s letter over the weekend.
Clinton wrote, “I share the opinion of you and many of your colleagues that these sanctions and the carefully constructed global consensus behind them are responsible for driving Tehran to the negotiating table….
“Now that serious negotiations are finally under way, we should do everything we can to test whether they can advance a permanent solution. As President Obama said, we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed, while keeping all options on the table,” she wrote.
“The US intelligence community has assessed that imposing new unilateral sanctions now ‘would undermine the prospects for a successful comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran.’ I share that view. It could rob us of the diplomatic high ground we worked so hard to reach, break the united international front we constructed, and, in the long run, weaken pressure on Iran by opening the door for other countries to chart a different course.”
During the administration of President George W. Bush, there was little support for imposing tough sanctions on Iran. Many countries laid much of the blame on Bush for refusing to negotiate with Iran. Obama came into office loudly proclaiming his willingness to talk to Iran. When the Islamic Republic rebuffed his entreaties, much of the world came to change its mind and see Tehran as the impediment to a solution.
Clinton wrote, “It was only because the entire world recognized that the United States was willing to engage in good faith negotiations—and that the regime in Tehran was not—that we were able to rally all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council behind serious sanctions, including Russia and China, and convince major consumers of Iranian oil to seek other supplies.
“I traveled all over the world making this case to foreign governments and they agreed, often at real cost to their own energy needs, because they saw that Iran was resisting serious negotiations and rejecting basic measures that would prove the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. Threatening new unilateral sanctions at this time risks undermining that progress,” Clinton wrote.
Clinton continued, “If the world judges – rightly or wrongly – that negotiations have collapsed because of actions in the United States Congress, even some of our closest partners abroad – to say nothing of countries like Russia and China – may well falter in their commitment.”
The threat of new sanctions appears now to have died out, as more and more members of Congress have come to accept the position outlined by Clinton and earlier by Obama. Fifty-nine of the 100 senators have signed on to sponsor new sanctions, but a number of the sponsors have said they don’t want the bill brought up for a vote. And no more senators have signed onto the bill since January 9.
As for the ongoing talks, Clinton said, “Like President Obama, I have no illusions about the ease or likelihood of turning the Joint Plan of Action into a permanent solution.”
She also outlined other concerns about Iranian behavior.
“So long as Iran remains a sponsor of terrorism and a threat to global security, we will have to remain vigilant in defense of our allies and partners, including Israel,” she wrote. “Yet I have no doubt that this is the time to give our diplomacy the space to work. If it does not, there will be time to put in place additional sanctions in the future, with greater international support necessary to ensure enforcement, and to explore every other option on the table,” a clear allusion to the possibility of a military attack on Iran.
