See below for some excerpts of the testimony that is being given this morning before the Senate Banking Committee, which is holding hearings on possible economic and financial sanctions against Iran, including sanctions against companies that sell refined petroleum products to Iran. These sanctions are part of S. 908, which has 71 cosponsors in the Senate and would likely go into effect early this fall absent some serious movement in the administration’s diplomatic outreach to A’jad and his buddies. Lieberman — who is speaking before the Committee first: “Crippling sanctions are not only consistent with diplomacy; they are critical to any hope of its success. It is precisely by putting in place the toughest possible sanctions, as quickly as possible, that we stand the best chance of persuading Iran’s leaders to make the compromises and concessions that the peaceful resolution of this crisis will require.” “The coming months will be critical in determining whether we stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. As I know all of the members of this Committee are aware, time is not on our side… Simply put, every day that we wait, the Iranian regime is advancing closer to its goal-and the odds that we can persuade them to turn back from the brink, through peaceful means, diminish.” Then, from a panel of experts: Nick Burns, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs: “The President would be wise to set a limited timetable for any discussions with Iran. He should be ready to walk away if progress is not visible in a reasonable period of time. He should also agree on the automaticity of sanctions with Russia and China, in particular, before any talks begin. In other words, Moscow and Beijing should assure the U.S. that they will sanction if the talks fail. China and Russia have acted unhelpfully by continuing to trade and sell arms to Tehran as it thumbed its nose at the international community. If President Obama is to offer talks to Tehran, it is only reasonable for China and Russia to pledge to join us in draconian sanctions on Iran should the talks break down.” “The U.S. and the other countries have declared their readiness to talk. The aim of these talks should be to convince Iran to cease its illegal nuclear research efforts. Should Iran not respond seriously and convincingly to this international offer by the autumn, the U.S. should turn to the second path by moving quickly and decisively with its key international partners to place very tough economic and financial sanctions on the Iranian government.” Matt Levitt, Washington Institute for Near East Policy: “Secretary Clinton has spoken about the possibility of inflicting “crippling sanctions” on Iran, and one particularly promising avenue to pursue would be to exploit Iran’s continued reliance on foreign refined petroleum to meet its domestic consumption needs at home. Due to insufficient refining capacity at home, Iran must still re-import the 40% of its domestically consumed petroleum from refineries abroad. The prospect of targeting Iran’s continued ability to re-import this refined petroleum back into the country could be a powerful tool targeting a regime soft spot. Consider as precedent the dramatic failure of the Iranian regime’s gas ration card program in June 2007. The cards were loaded with a six months ration, but many Iranians reportedly used their entire ration within weeks. Indeed, Iran worries each winter about a possible heating fuel shortage and the consequence of not being able to provide the public with sufficient fuel subsidies.” Danielle Pletka, AEI: “Perhaps more important than the moral and financial suasion of divestment, however, is the tool that has yet to be used by the international community to persuade Tehran of the wisdom of coming to the table: restrictions on the export to Iran of refined petroleum products and equipment to enhance Iran’s own refinery capacity. S. 908 affords the President that opportunity; it doesn’t force it on him, which may be an option another Congress will feel compelled to consider. But as a supermajority of the Senate and many in the House of Representatives (who support Congressman Berman’s companion bill) have made clear, only the “sword of Damocles” (to use Chairman Berman’s phrase) of punitive sanctions will impel the Iranian regime to take seriously the many, many deadlines and redlines announced by the international community.” “This week, Secretary Gates suggested that «if the engagement process is not successful, the United States is prepared to press for significant additional sanctions that would be non-incremental.” The Secretary is absolutely right that the drip drip of incremental sanctions will not answer the mail. But he posits a false choice for the administration and our allies. In truth, the choice is not between engagement and sanctions. Rather, it is only by applying the toughest possible sanctions that we stand any chance of persuading Iran’s leaders to consider serious negotiations with the international community. “
