[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 151 (Monday, October 19, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S10518]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  IRAN REFINED PETROLEUM SANCTIONS ACT

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, in the coming weeks, the Senate will consider 
S. 908, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. Passing this bill 
should not be difficult 76 Members of this body are registered as 
cosponsors--but it is vital that we do.
  I support strong sanctions to build pressure on Iran to end its 
illegal nuclear weapons program, which, in light of the recent 
disclosure of the Qom uranium enrichment facility, may be far more 
advanced than we realize.
  However, China and Russia continue to thwart meaningful action in the 
United Nations Security Council. As Bob Robb, a columnist for the 
Arizona Republic notes, both nations have commercial ties to the 
Iranian regime and are unlikely to abandon their interests and assist 
the United States in building pressure on the Iran.
  Mr. Robb also emphasizes that U.S. efforts to halt Iran's nuclear 
program have taken on a new urgency after the President cancelled the 
deployments of the ground-based interceptors to Poland and the Czech 
Republic.
  Had the President managed to get support from Russia for more 
sanctions on Iran in exchange for sacrificing missile defense, things 
might look different. However, as shown by Secretary Clinton's recent 
visit to Moscow, Russia's position has not changed, and the U.S. has 
nothing to show for breaking its strategic commitments with two 
important allies.
  Time is not on the administration's side. Every day the Iranians 
stockpile more uranium and get closer to having long-range missiles 
capable of delivering the world's most dangerous weapons against our 
allies, our deployed forces, and our homeland. The time to act is now.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the op-ed by Mr. Robb be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  Iran a Test of Obama's New Diplomacy

                            (By Robert Robb)

       Iran is providing a premature and very high-risk test of 
     President Barack Obama's new approach to American diplomacy.
       Simplified, the thesis of the new Obama approach is that if 
     the United States plays nicer with others, others will play 
     nicer with us and be more willing to help do tough things.
       I've never held out much hope for the Obama approach. I 
     believe that nations generally act in their self-interest 
     without regard to sentiments about other countries.
       On the other hand, the Bush administration's blustery 
     approach only made the rest of the world more hostile and 
     resentful, which wasn't in our self-interest. So, it was 
     worth giving the Obama approach a whirl.
       The Obama approach, however, was intended to generate good 
     will over time. The United States would cooperate more on 
     international issues such as climate change and in 
     international organizations such as the U.N. We would engage 
     in direct diplomacy with troublesome regimes such as in Iran, 
     North Korea, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba, all of which Obama 
     said would receive presidential meetings in his first year in 
     office.
       After showing good will and willingness to engage in direct 
     diplomacy, the rest of the world would be more willing to 
     support the United States if tougher efforts to rein in 
     dangerous rogue behavior nevertheless proved necessary, went 
     the theory.
       Iran has spoiled and short-circuited the rollout of the new 
     Obama diplomacy. The disputed Iranian election made it 
     difficult to engage in direct diplomacy with the current 
     government without appearing to give the back of the hand to 
     those risking their lives to protest its illegitimacy. 
     Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stepped up his attacks 
     on Israel's right to exist. And Iran remains unflinching and 
     deceitful about its rapidly-developing nuclear program.
       So, the Obama administration is going to have to test its 
     new diplomatic approach before laying all the prerequisites 
     by trying to organize strong sanctions against Iran. It 
     increased the stakes for such diplomacy greatly by abandoning 
     the missile defense complex in Poland at least in part, it 
     seems clear, to induce greater cooperation on Iran by Russia.
       Sanctions would have to be crippling to have any hope of 
     forcing Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Only the 
     equivalent of a non-military embargo on gasoline imports is 
     thought to have sufficient effect to possibly get the job 
     done.
       To be effective, a ban on Iranian gasoline imports would 
     require extraordinary international cooperation. Western 
     powers might adopt them, and indeed Western suppliers have 
     already been cutting ties to Iran. But gasoline is 
     transportable and tradable, so masking its origins is 
     difficult but doable.
       The national interest calculations would suggest that 
     Russia and China are unlikely to go along with potentially 
     effective sanctions against Iran, officially or unofficially. 
     Iran is a client of Russia's on nuclear technology and 
     military apparatus. China is a client for Iranian oil, which 
     provides 15 percent of China's crude supplies.
       They also have the interest Robert Kagan has cited that all 
     autocratic regimes have in thwarting efforts to pressure and 
     delegitimize other autocratic regimes.
       The need to very quickly cobble together an effective 
     sanctions regimen against Iran is an unfair test of Obama's 
     new approach. But it's the test that has to be taken.
       If the effort to impose effective sanctions fails, as it is 
     likely to do, the Russian gambit will prove very costly.
       If sanctions fail and Israel doesn't act, the world may 
     have to live with an Iran capable of producing a nuclear 
     weapon. In that world, the Poland missile defense complex 
     would have been very valuable.
       The Obama administration said that it was abandoning the 
     Poland complex designed to shoot down long-range missiles 
     because the intelligence suggested Iran has slowed down the 
     development of its long-range capability. It's hard to credit 
     that. Iran has successfully tested a two-stage rocket and put 
     a satellite in space.
       Theater missile defense, which the Obama administration 
     says it will emphasize more, is important. But in a world 
     with a nuclear-capable Iran, so is the European missile 
     defense against long-range threats the Obama administration 
     just abandoned.

                          ____________________