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.
More sanctions because the previous sanctions are working soooo well. Â
These people only respect action so why not disarm a nuclear missile and at 3am deliver it right in the middle of a park in the center of Terran the people will see we can hit them when ever we like. The people in Iran are the only ones that can take down their government. It would also be a good test for our missile system. We have enough lets just give them one.
Doesn't sound like peaceful nuclear endeavours to me. Could the liberal media be wrong? Perhaps Obama and Putin can work out a solution to Iran when they are doing their "disarming America talks."
@TimBurr You forgot a small piece of information about the talks,"while disarming America talks and feeding the Iranians, N Korea, and other countries in the middle east armaments"! Â Wonder if they started "talks" over the missile fired at a US aircraft on 11/1/2012 , which is an act of war by the Irnians yet? Or was the missile for peaceful purposes?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad needs a third eye right between the two he has
Yeah, like this is really going to work? this country has been around for over 3,000 years way longer then the US. What makes you think that our policing them is going to make a bit of differences. You have a snake by its tail, it can and will strike.
@lee986321 and just what is your solution to the problem? Attack Iran? That would be just wonderful. Are you now in line to enlist either yourself or one of your sons, daughters, or grandchildren for what would be outright hell in the middle east? Again, what is your solution. Talk is cheap.
 @peckishpete  @lee986321 The middle east has always and always shall be the way it is, nothing can change that, The only thing we will manage to do is get into Armageddon, where we all be reduced back to using Sticks and stones. You really haven't a clue do you? Nothing will stop the coming war if we continue down this path. and trust me you will not want any part of it because forget enlisting, we all will be fighting. We all will be shedding blood, we all will have to make a choice to live or to die. You just wait and see what will happen when these Sanctions are furthered. They will simply not work, because the middle east is of its own Origins and need not rely on any other country for there needs and wants. But hey, what do I know, I wasn't born 3,000+ years ago. and the US is only a few hundred years old. I ask you this one question, what was the middle east like 300 years ago? VS what it is today. I do not think you will find much of a difference other then we have interfered way to much.
Â
So be my guest, by all means, if you think we can control them , then you are more delusional then most in an insane asylum, because like it or not, they will get what they need from the enemies of the US.
 @peckishpete  @lee986321 No need to enlist 2-3 bombs will do the needful.
 @peckishpete YUP, And also all this can be found at a local library, Yes the special building contain things call books, if people would care to go to them and research fro themselves they would see the truth. But as such Some seek not these institutions of instruction..I suppose they think that if it is not on the net then it has no merit.
I don't know what revisionistic history book you have written but our problems with Iran began when our CIA helped organize a coup to take down a democratically elected leader we did not like and install the Shah of Iran who subsequently imposed a police state on his people. The straw that broke the camel's back was when after their revolution overthrew the Shah we had the audacity to accept him into the United States for cancer treatment. We started the problems with Iranian by imposing on them a dictator much like we have done so many other times before and after in Latin America. And dropping some nukes will not solve our problems in the Middle East - in will only make them worse.Â
 @Julie  @peckishpete "Would you drop a bomb on Afghanistan if you knew it would prevent 9/11?"
That's like asking "would you kill a person if you knew they were going to rape somebody?  Straw man argument
Â
"Â I am not sarcastic - we should have bombed them back during the hostage crises."
Do you know what events lead up to the hostage crises? Â Do you think the Iranians just woke up one day and said let's go take some hostages???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ybj5KULmA
Â
We didn't drop bombs on them this time but we did shoot down an airliner.  Remember too, we were first told the ship was in international waters and the plane was making manovers like a jet fighter.  Later, it is admitted the Vincennes was actually in Iranian waters when it shot down the civilian airliner.  What would we do if Iran did this to us?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707.stm
Â
 @peckishpete  Would you drop a bomb on Afghanistan if you knew it would prevent 9/11? Now 9/11 was done with box cutters. Terrorists with nuclear bombs can cause damage that would make 9/11 look like a child play. In other words, no , I am not sarcastic - we should have bombed them back during the hostage crises.
@Julie @lee986321 I'll just assume your are being sarcastic and leave it at that because if you are not, I just don't know what to say to someone who is willing to drop 2-3 nuclear bombs on a country.
Like the last 10 years worth of sanctions have accomplished anything
 @Rob C 503 Well hell.  I guess the third shooting war in the region in 12 years would be the charm?
@Rob C 503 and what, pray tell, is your solution Rob?Â
The US won't be happy until war is fully underway.