This is an issue that has been diaried extensively, and so this diary is on one specific point. Part of Senator Clinton’s justification for her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is the following:
I was in the Senate that day, and was about to vote “no” on this legislation because it had language that President Bush could have used to justify military action against Iran. Working together, Senate Democrats reached across party lines to remove these sections. Only then did I and a lot of other Democrats vote for the resolution in order to pressure Iran by clearing the way for sanctions and pushing the President to get them to the negotiating table.
The topic of this diary is the specific question of whether the phrase that is emphasized above holds water.
Set-Asides
Set aside the question of whether the President is more interested in the propaganda value of the amendment or the legislative language.
Set aside the question of whether, for this President, negotiation is a formality that has to be got out of the way as expeditiously as possible, on the path to military action.
This diary is not about those points.
This diary is about the Clinton campaign talking point that the purpose of the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution is to open the way for sanctions.
Whose Sanctions?
This is a two-step argument, and the first step is the most straightforward. Obviously, sanctions imposed by the US will have very little impact, because we have had sanctions on Iran for nearly three decades, and so the Iranian economy is not heavily integrated with the US economy, for either financial services or for imports of products they cannot produce themselves.
As John Edwards noted more than half a year ago, in his 2 February interview with Ezra Klein on the subject of Iran:
First, America should be negotiating directly with Iran, which Bush won’t do. Second, we need to get our European friends, not just the banking system, but the governments themselves, to help us do two things — put a group, a system of carrots and sticks on the table. The carrots are, we’ll make nuclear fuel available to you, we’ll control the cycle, but you can use it for any civilian purpose. Second, an economic package, which I don’t think has been seriously proposed up until now. Because there economy is already struggling, and it would be very attractive to them. And then on the flip side, the stick side, to say if you don’t do that, there are going to be more serious economic sanctions than you’ve seen up until now. Now of course we need the Europeans for this, cause they’re the ones with the economic relationship with Iran, but the whole purpose of this is number one to get an agreement. Number two, to isolate this radical leader so that the moderates and those within the country who want to see Iran succeed economically, can take advantage of it.
SO that’s who has to be on-board with the sanctions … the US on its own has very little economic leverage on Iran, but working with the Europeans, we can have substantial economic leverage.
Has Kyl-Lieberman Paved The Way for Multilateral Sanctions?
The following are excerpted from the LA Times article, which is behind a registration firewall.
There is a consensus emerging that the EU will have to adopt sanctions:
a consensus is emerging that the European Union will have to adopt its own unilateral sanctions, possibly within the next few weeks, to complement the U.S. action. Europe’s support is needed, particularly in the face of Russian and Chinese reluctance, if the administration hopes to force Iran to back down on its controversial uranium enrichment program.
There are two bases for opposition to this. The first is economic:
Bringing on board nations such as Germany and Italy, which together had more than $7 billion in exports to Iran last year, will be difficult. Berlin already saw Russia pick up the contracts German companies abandoned for Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power station; now, European companies fear that Russia and China will move in if the EU imposes sanctions outside a U.N. framework.
There are signs, however, that both Germany and Italy are prepared to back whatever consensus is reached within the EU.
… so Germany and Italy are two voices that may be inclined to speak against strong measures, as the EU works toward a consensus.
And what is the second thread of opposition? Well, its this:
But many European analysts said Friday that it would be difficult to hope to engage Tehran in negotiations while attempting to isolate groups such as the Revolutionary Guard, from whose ranks Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and many of his colleagues have emerged.
Cornering Iran’s military hard-liners could diminish the government’s willingness to negotiate and is unlikely to produce the hoped-for wedge between the Revolutionary Guard and the Iranian public, many Europeans fear.
“The idea that there is a clear separation between the population and the Revolutionary Guard is completely false,” said Thierry Colville of the Institute for International and Strategic Relations in Paris.
“There has been an eight-year war with 500,000 dead in Iran,” he said, referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. “It looks like the U.S. has forgotten this war, which legitimized the Guard.”
While the call to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard may be seen in the US conventional wisdom as “showing strength”, what it unfortunately displays to European analysts is ignorance of the situation in Iran. Attacking Ahmadinejad because he emerged from the ranks of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is not weakening his position inside Iran … its strengthening it.
Now, the purpose of sanctions is supposedly to bring Iran to the bargaining table … and if Europeans see the labeling of the IRG as a terrorist organization as a roadblock to negotiations, that weakens the case for sanctions amongst the Europeans.
Now, they will probably come to a consensus with some form of sanctions … but Europeans arguing for stronger “sticks” in a carrot and sticks approach are undermined by efforts to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Which is Worse?
I don’t know whether Senator Clinton failed to understand that, in reality, it is European sanctions that are the real four by fours in terms of economic and political “sticks” in a “carrots and sticks” approach … or whether she realized that, and placed a higher priority on the political effort to project an image of “being tough”.
I’m more than happy to assume, however, that she is sincere. That means that in this case, she sincerely believes that a unilateral, provocative propaganda move that strengthens the domestic political standing of President Ahmadinejad and erects one more roadblock to negotiations with Iran is the appropriate policy.
From my own personal view, however, I don’t want to see the erection of roadblocks to negotiation, because when a nation is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, I see erecting roadblocks to negotiation as a step toward a military option … and I agree with John Edwards on that alternative … none of the following has been made obsolete since his interview of 2 February:
Now that’s on the one hand, the flip side of this is what happens if America were to militarily strike Iran? Well you take this unstable, radical leader, and you make him a hero — that’s the first thing that’ll happen. The Iranian people will rally around him. The second thing that will happen is they will retaliate. And they have certainly some potential for retaliating here in the United States through some of these terrorist organizations they’re close to, but we’ve got over a hundred thousand people right next door. And most people believe that they have an infrastructure for retaliation inside Iraq. So, that’s the second thing that’ll happen. And the third thing is there are a lot of analysts who believe that an air strike or a missile strike is not enough to be successful. To be successful we’d actually have to have troops on the ground, and where in the world would they come from? So, to me, this is the path, I don’t know if you read Tom Friedman’s column either yesterday or the day before?
Ezra: I did not.
It’ll be easy to find. Take a look at it, I think it’s very smart and he’s thinking about this exactly the right way.
Ezra: He says should we do something sensible, that both sides can agree on?
[laughs] Amazing yeah.
Ezra: So, I just want to get it very clear, you think that attacking Iran would be a bad idea?
I think would have very bad consequences.
Disclaimer
From what I understood Senator Obama express his opposition prior to the vote (update: or maybe not … I saw that somewhere, but have also heard the opposite … in any the event, the balance of this disclaimer seems correct). While it has been claimed that he “skipped the vote”, as I understand it the vote was not originally scheduled for that day, so I see no reason not to take him at his word that he would have also voted against the amended legislation if he had been in the Senate Senate that day, rather than in New Hampshire preparing for that evening’s debate.
Its not as if he was hanging around his office and could not be bothered to get to the Senate floor for the vote.
