Congress-Ahmadinejad Secret Love Affair Continues

Well, this saga is just getting worse and worse. I reported earlier this week that H.R. 1327, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009 had been put on Congress' suspension calendar (fast track voting) for Tuesday - a move that puzzled many since imposing new sanctions on Iran four days before Iran's elections would likely help Ahmadinejad get re-elected.

Turned out that the item had been put on the agenda by the Republicans, and that the Democrats opposed it precisely because they didn't want to do anything to help Ahmadinejad get re-elected. So it was pulled off of the agenda sometime on Monday.

The White House had also made it clear that new sanctions would undermine diplomacy. Secretary of State Clinton told lawmakers earlier in May that "Until we have tested, within the time period set forth by the president, where we think this engagement is going, I am not sure that adding new unilateral sanctions is really that helpful."

But last night, Republican lawmakers moved to replace the State Authorization bill with another Iran sanctions act - the Iran Refine Petroleum Sanctions Act. This took almost everyone by surprise. The motion failed since lawmakers voted along party lines, but it showed two things:

First, those who wish to undermine President Obama's efforts to pursue diplomacy with Iran and other states, are not just wishing that Obama fails, they are trying to ensure that he fails. Securing Ahmadinejad's re-election by imposing new sanctions right before the elections is useful, they argue, since mobilizing people and nations against Ahmadinejad is relatively easy. If he gets thrown out of office by the Iranian electorate, it will be more difficult to stage a confrontation.

Secondly, realizing that sanctions legislation will be put on the backburner if Ahmadinejad's loses, supporters of these political obstacles to diplomacy are seeking to pass them before the window closes, so to say. The added plus of undermining Obama is just the icing on the cake.

The larger issue, however is this: If additional sanctions on Iran right before the elections will help strengthen radicals and weaken moderates in Iran, then won't that be true also after the elections? Even the sponsors of the sanctions bill agree that imposing sanctions now would undermine Ahmadinejad's opponents - in fact, it was explained to be the precise reason why they originally took the vote off the calendar.

But if these sanctions strengthen radicals - why not simply shelve the bill and give Obama a fair chance to pursue diplomacy?

Comments

[BlueFloyd]

not surprising that the repubs kept saying dems who opposed bush wanted us to fail in iraq. it was classic projection: the repubs knew that with a democatic pres in power, they would want us to fail, so they naturally figured that it was vice versa as well!

[AspenFreePress]

Iran's presidential election reminds me of Mexico's in which Obrador lead Calderon by a huge margin, but when the dust settled the Bush-backed Calderon was president. I don't know a single Mexican in the U.S. who feels the election was legitimate. Sterling Greenwood/Aspen Free Press

[Pye Ian - Huffpost Blogger]

Terrific piece that shines a necessary light on attempts at haulting progress. Those pushing such legislation must ask themselves if they are truly working for the best interests of America and her foreign policy imperatives in the Gulf region.

Sober thinking would answer with a firm "no".

[Json]

I expect that the republicans will hate Obama, but I had hoped that they loved America more than they hated Obama.
It's scary to think that elected officials of any party would be hoping that America fails just to prove that they are right and to score political points.

[monelis]

It is not our elected officials who make the Iran’s policy decisions; it is our good friends at AIPAC. Because about 90% of Middle East policies are written with AIPAC’s blessing or initiations and if any politician refuse to follow orders they can kiss their behind goodbye and forget the next election.

[Aaror]

Oh, an important point that Republicans and other warmongers like to ignore. The Assembly of Experts is in charge of selecting the next Ayatollah of Iran. In 2007 opponents of Ahmadinejad won the Assembly of Experts election by a significant margin.
Due to a technicality, the normal 8 year term of the assembly will last 10 years this cycle. That means that if the current (70 year old) Ayatollah dies before 2017, a potentially pro-US cleric will replace him.
Now there are some issues that affect this possibility:
1. The average age of members of the assembly of experts is about 60, so there are frequent elections to replace them. This could dilute the victory of pro-western forces in the last election.
2. The members of the assembly of experts are older, and remember the US overthrow of the first democratic government of Iran and installation of the Shah. They are likely to be less friendly to the US than the younger 50%+ of the voting population born after the revolution.
3. If Ahmadinejad loses the election, this could change the attitude towards the reformist and moderate politicians in Iran, with unpredictable results.

[Aaror]

So the Republicans are supporting someone who funds terrorists? Doesn't that give Obama the authority to freeze the RNC's bank accounts???

[mcantwell]

Rethugs want nothing to do with world peace efforts.