Bipartisan Push for Tougher Iran Sanctions

As prepared for delivery – Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the bipartisan amendment I have offered together with my colleagues Senators Kyl, Bayh, and McCain. Mr. President, as you know, President Obama has made a historic offer to Iran’s leaders, inviting them to engage in direct diplomacy to resolve all outstanding differences between our nations. As the President has repeatedly said, the door is open for the Iranians to come in out of the cold, if they choose to do so. It is by suspending their illicit nuclear activities and ending their support for terrorism that the Iranians have a clear path to ending their international isolation and taking their rightful place in the community of nations. Unfortunately, it has been more than three and a half months since the President’s formal offer of engagement, and there has been no reply from the Iranians. Meanwhile, Iran’s illicit nuclear activities have continued to speed forward, in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions. Thousands of additional centrifuges are being installed, and more and more fissile material is being stockpiled. At the same time, Iran’s support for terrorist proxies in Iraq, in Lebanon, and in the Palestinian Territories has continued. And of course, over the past month, the world has watched as the Iranian regime has engaged in a brutal crackdown against its own people. The President-together with our international allies-has been very clear that we will not wait indefinitely for the Iranians to respond to our offer of talks, nor will we enter into negotiations without end. Two weeks ago, at the annual G-8 summit in Italy, President Obama joined with other world leaders to make clear to the Iranians that they have until the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, at the end of September, to return to the negotiating table. The amendment that Senator Kyl, Senator Bayh, Senator McCain and I have put forward would put the full weight of the United States Senate behind the time frame that the President and the G-8 have articulated. Our amendment expresses our strong hope that Iran seizes President Obama’s historic offer of direct dialogue. We also make clear that, if the Iranians have failed to engage with us diplomatically by the time of the G-20 summit two months from now, it is our preference that multilateral sanctions be imposed through the United Nations Security Council. However, the Iranians must also understand the United States is itself prepared to put in place crippling sanctions, as Secretary of State Clinton has warned, in the event that they continue to flaunt the will of the international community. As the President put it two weeks ago at the G-8, “We’re not going to just wait indefinitely and allow for the development of nuclear weapons in breach of international treaties, and wake up one day and find ourselves in a much worse situation and unable to act.” Specifically, our amendment urges the President to be prepared to impose sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran and other banks involved in proliferation and terrorist activities, in the event that the Iranians haven’t entered into serious negotiations by the time of the G-20 summit, or if they haven’t suspended enrichment and reprocessing activities within 60 days of that summit. The Central Bank is the financial lifeline of the Iranian regime. It is an entity that our own Treasury Department says has engaged in deceptive financial practices and facilitated the efforts of other Iranian banks that are involved in bankrolling proliferation and terrorist activities to avoid international sanctions, and that have themselves been sanctioned by the UN and the U.S. Treasury Department as a result. The idea of imposing sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank is not new. On the contrary, it has already been endorsed by a bipartisan majority in this chamber. Last year, the Senate Banking Committee under Chairman Dodd adopted bipartisan Iran legislation, by a vote of 19 to 2, that urged the President to immediately impose sanctions against the Central Bank. Also last year, the House of Representatives passed legislation, introduced by Congressman Howard Berman, that urged immediate sanctions against the Central Bank. More recently, the legislation that Senator Bayh, Senator Kyl, and I put forward this spring-the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, S. 908-also expresses the Sense of the Senate that the President should impose sanctions against the Central Bank. I am very proud that S. 908 now has 67 cosponsors, including some of the most liberal and conservative members of this chamber. The bottom line: if you are one of the 67 cosponsors of S. 908, you have already endorsed the core proposal of this amendment-namely, that the President should impose sanctions on the Central Bank. The only difference is that S. 908 says that we should impose these sanctions immediately, whereas our amendment would give the Iranians an additional two months to sit down and engage in direct talks. To be very clear, this amendment in no way, shape, or form will tie the President’s hands in his diplomacy with Iran, or will it undermine our effort to engage with Iran. That is not our intent. On the contrary, this amendment is about empowering the President and giving him additional leverage in his diplomacy, by endorsing the time table that came out of the G-8 summit. I have supported the President’s overtures to engage the Iranians in direct diplomacy. But the Iranians need to understand that this is a limited time offer. As the President and other world leaders have recently warned, the Iranians must appreciate that there will be consequences if they fail to respond to our diplomacy and continue to speed forward in their nuclear program. This amendment will therefore send an unmistakable message to the Iranians, in support of the President and the G-8: either you can either engage with the United States and take steps to suspend your nuclear activities, as the world demands, or you can continue on your current trajectory-in which case, you will face crippling sanctions.