Mr. Speaker, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will address the United Nations General Assembly in just a couple of hours -- the latest step in his campaign to remove all obstacles to Tehran’s headlong pursuit of nuclear weapons. We, in turn, must resolve to use every available peaceful means – economic, political and diplomatic – to put a stop to that deadly, dangerous pursuit.
Peaceful persuasion in this instance will require a lot of leverage. Strong international sanctions must be imposed against the regime in Tehran – biting sanctions that will bring about a change in policy.
Ideally, Mr. Speaker, such measures would be undertaken through the United Nations. But if China and Russia continue to block effective U.N. sanctions against Iran, the United States must move ahead in the company of as many other like-minded nations as possible.
And if multi-lateral sanctions are not in the offing the United States needs to be prepared to tighten and to fully enforce our own sanctions, without any exceptions.
Current law imposes sanctions in the U.S. market on any foreign company that invests $20 million or more in the Iranian energy sector. But the law lets the Executive Branch at its sole discretion waive those sanctions, and for years, Mr. Speaker, Administrations of both parties have done so without fail.
Since 1999, giant companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, France’s Total, Italy’s ENI and Inpex of Japan have invested over 100 billion dollars – over 100 billion dollars -- in the Iranian energy industry, and the United States has done nothing to stop them.
If we wish to impose serious and biting sanctions on Iran -- effective measures that will change the behavior of the regime in Tehran – it is clear what we must do. We must take away the power from the Administration to waive the sanctions we pass.
Two days ago on “60 Minutes,” the President of Iran had this to say about the issue of nuclear weapons: “We don’t need a nuclear bomb. … In political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union."
I wish that we could take Ahmadinejad at his word, but we obviously cannot. This is the same man who yesterday said, "Our people are the freest in the world” and “there are no homosexuals in Iran.”
We are all well aware of the many other absurd irrational statements that have emanated from Tehran since this man took power.
But there is one arena in which I agree with Ahmadinejad: When he says his country has the same right as every other country to use civilian nuclear power. Every country has that right, but if they all decide to get there by mastering the full nuclear fuel cycle, then the door will be wide open to an unprecedented global proliferation of nuclear weapons.
That is why earlier the House passed my legislation to authorize the creation of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Every country -- including Iran – can draw from that bank the nuclear fuel necessary for the production of civilian energy under strict IAEA safeguards, but no nation will be able to divert nuclear materials for military purposes. The International Atomic Energy Agency supports this approach, as do all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, including our own administration.
One would think that the decision-makers in Tehran would look upon this idea of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank as an elegant way to get Iran out of a difficult, unproductive and singularly isolated situation. I hope that they will take this road, and they will use this opportunity to move away from their current isolation in the international community.
And I hope as well that the Administration will see its way clear to opening up serious and continuing dialogue with Iran. When I hear it said that it is somehow wrong to talk with Iran, I think back to the days when the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at the United States. Surely, the Soviets then were a great deal more dangerous to us than the Iranian leadership is today – and yet we talked with them daily. We maintained a very active diplomacy vis á vis the Soviet Union. We were engaged in trade, travel and cultural exchanges of many types.
Mr. Speaker, I am not alone in hoping that relations with Iran can be improved. But as long as irrationality prevails in Tehran, we must be prepared to employ all peaceful means at our disposal to ensure that the regime renounces its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran faces a choice between a very big carrot and a very sharp stick. It is my hope that they will take the carrot – but today, we are putting the stick in place.
Mr. Speaker, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will address the United Nations General Assembly in just a couple of hours -- the latest step in his campaign to remove all obstacles to Tehran’s headlong pursuit of nuclear weapons. We, in turn, must resolve to use every available peaceful means – economic, political and diplomatic – to put a stop to that deadly, dangerous pursuit.
Peaceful persuasion in this instance will require a lot of leverage. Strong international sanctions must be imposed against the regime in Tehran – biting sanctions that will bring about a change in policy.
Ideally, Mr. Speaker, such measures would be undertaken through the United Nations. But if China and Russia continue to block effective U.N. sanctions against Iran, the United States must move ahead in the company of as many other like-minded nations as possible.
And if multi-lateral sanctions are not in the offing the United States needs to be prepared to tighten and to fully enforce our own sanctions, without any exceptions.
Current law imposes sanctions in the U.S. market on any foreign company that invests $20 million or more in the Iranian energy sector. But the law lets the Executive Branch at its sole discretion waive those sanctions, and for years, Mr. Speaker, Administrations of both parties have done so without fail.
Since 1999, giant companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, France’s Total, Italy’s ENI and Inpex of Japan have invested over 100 billion dollars – over 100 billion dollars -- in the Iranian energy industry, and the United States has done nothing to stop them.
If we wish to impose serious and biting sanctions on Iran -- effective measures that will change the behavior of the regime in Tehran – it is clear what we must do. We must take away the power from the Administration to waive the sanctions we pass.
Two days ago on “60 Minutes,” the President of Iran had this to say about the issue of nuclear weapons: “We don’t need a nuclear bomb. … In political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union."
I wish that we could take Ahmadinejad at his word, but we obviously cannot. This is the same man who yesterday said, "Our people are the freest in the world” and “there are no homosexuals in Iran.”
We are all well aware of the many other absurd irrational statements that have emanated from Tehran since this man took power.
But there is one arena in which I agree with Ahmadinejad: When he says his country has the same right as every other country to use civilian nuclear power. Every country has that right, but if they all decide to get there by mastering the full nuclear fuel cycle, then the door will be wide open to an unprecedented global proliferation of nuclear weapons.
That is why earlier the House passed my legislation to authorize the creation of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Every country -- including Iran – can draw from that bank the nuclear fuel necessary for the production of civilian energy under strict IAEA safeguards, but no nation will be able to divert nuclear materials for military purposes. The International Atomic Energy Agency supports this approach, as do all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, including our own administration.
One would think that the decision-makers in Tehran would look upon this idea of an International Nuclear Fuel Bank as an elegant way to get Iran out of a difficult, unproductive and singularly isolated situation. I hope that they will take this road, and they will use this opportunity to move away from their current isolation in the international community.
And I hope as well that the Administration will see its way clear to opening up serious and continuing dialogue with Iran. When I hear it said that it is somehow wrong to talk with Iran, I think back to the days when the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at the United States. Surely, the Soviets then were a great deal more dangerous to us than the Iranian leadership is today – and yet we talked with them daily. We maintained a very active diplomacy vis á vis the Soviet Union. We were engaged in trade, travel and cultural exchanges of many types.
Mr. Speaker, I am not alone in hoping that relations with Iran can be improved. But as long as irrationality prevails in Tehran, we must be prepared to employ all peaceful means at our disposal to ensure that the regime renounces its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran faces a choice between a very big carrot and a very sharp stick. It is my hope that they will take the carrot – but today, we are putting the stick in place.