Corker Amendment Shall Not Be Introduced

Earlier today the
Finance
Banking Committee debated amendments to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2009, a piece of legislation that is built around the Bayh-Kyl-Lieberman Iran sanctions bill that has garnered some 76 cosponsors in the Senate. Dodd’s bill, which is supported by the committee’s ranking member Senator Richard Shelby, is the counterpart to the Iran sanctions legislation Rep. Howard Berman marked up in the House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, though the Senate bill adds language allowing state pension funds to divest from Iran and attempts to halt the flow of goods into Iran from Middle East ports (last year the New York Times detailed the ease with which dual use goods may flow into Iran from ports like Dubai). However, the focus of both bills would be to target Iran’s dependence on the importation of refined petroleum products (Iran now produces 40 percent less refined petroleum than it did when the Shah fell while the population of the country has doubled over the same time period). Senator Bob Corker introduced an amendment yesterday calling for these sanctions to be imposed in coordination with Russia and China. The amendment was adopted, and in an interview with THE WEEKLY STANDARD this afternoon, Corker warned that if unilateral U.S. sanctions were imposed, the difference in Iran’s imports would “easily be made up by Russia and China.” The Obama administration can “exercise some testosterone doing it ourselves,” but in Iran, Corker says, “the effect that we can have on refined petroleum is very small.” Of course, targeting gasoline imports was a key plank of Obama’s Iran policy during the campaign, and the measure itself seems to have broad bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. During the campaign Obama talked a lot about multilateral sanctions, but in the event he’s been unable to secure the support of either Russia or China and looks to have little hope of doing so. Multilateral sanctions would be better than unilateral sanctions, but unilateral sanctions look likely to be the only option. However, it wasn’t the amendment that Corker introduced yesterday that had Iran-watchers talking. It was an amendment he had planned to introduce today but pulled at the last minute. This second amendment would have changed the ‘shalls’ in the bill to ‘mays’ — i.e., the bill would no longer command President Obama to impose petroleum sanctions in 120 days barring some major diplomatic breakthrough (the president shall…), but would instead allow the president to impose those sanctions (the president may…). Corker offered several rationales for this attempt to change the language. First off, he said, “when we pass this the president has to do it in 120 days…I question the timing.” In other words, Corker worries that the language would limit the president’s flexibility. However, it’s not at all clear that’s true — the bill, like many other pieces of Iran legislation, contains a national security waiver that can be invoked at the president’s discretion (it also has several other waivers, including a waiver that would allow the president to waive sanctions on individual companies based in allied countries where the government is cooperating with the United States on the Iran threat). Corker also said that he “made the point that by using the word ‘shall,’ they were sending a message of no confidence in the president.” Corker said that observation was met by silence from the Democrats in the room, but sources familiar with the history of this legislation note the language was crafted before Obama’s election, and add that the use of the word ‘shall’ is standard legislative language. The real problem with Corker’s amendment, and the reason that there was so little support for it among members of the committee, was that Dodd’s bill actually gives the president no new authority to impose sanctions on Iran — it is merely a statement of broad bipartisan support and resolve for the president should he choose to exercise his existing authority under the International Emergency Powers Act. If we are to convince the Iranians of the seriousness of our purpose, Congress needs to show it is ready to wield the stick. What’s odd about all this is that Corker makes all the right hawkish noises on Iran’s nuclear program. This bill is “our last best sanctions before military [action],” Corker said, insisting that he “absolutely” favored a military strike if the diplomatic course failed. “A nuclear weaponized Iran is probably the greatest threat we face,” Corker said. Given all that, it is odd that Corker would try to introduce an amendment that makes the U.S. Senate appear less than committed to tough sanctions. The Iran sanctions legislation ultimately passed out of committee today by a unanimous (23-0) vote.