{"id":87330,"date":"2013-10-28T08:13:00","date_gmt":"2013-10-28T07:13:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/?guid=783c5ed2a4a1e24240e3012dc194a356"},"modified":"2013-10-28T08:13:00","modified_gmt":"2013-10-28T07:13:00","slug":"maintaining-iran-sanctions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/editorials\/maintaining-iran-sanctions\/","title":{"rendered":"Maintaining Iran Sanctions"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

Maintaining Iran Sanctions<\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
by Stephen Lendman<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
AIPAC wants them stiffened. More on that below. Congressional Democrats and Republicans want tougher ones.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Senator Mark Kirk (R. IL) said:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Given Iran\u2019s continued refusal to halt its illicit nuclear and ballistic missile programs, the Senate should immediately move forward with a new round of economic sanctions targeting all remaining Iranian government revenue and reserves.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Senator Mark Rubio (R. FL) added:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Tehran has broken its word far too many times to be trusted. Due to its complete disregard for previous international agreements, we must take a firm stand in all negotiations regarding the nuclear capabilities Iran is permitted to retain.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Six Democrat and four Republican senators insist Iran halt all uranium enrichment. On October 11, they wrote Obama<\/span><\/a> demanding it.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
They lied saying Iran’s program “threatens regional stability and international security.” They falsely claimed it harms “US national security interests.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
They reject Iran’s legitimate right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. They demand tougher sanctions for noncompliance.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Signatories include:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Robert Menendez (D. NJ – Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Lindsey Graham (R. SC)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Charles E. Schumer (D. NY – aka the senator from AIPAC)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Roy Blunt (R. MO)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Patty Murray (D. WA)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
John McCain (R. AZ)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Barbara A. Mikulski (D. MD)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Kelly Ayotte (R. NH)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D. PA)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Christopher A. Coons (D. DE)<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In July, House legislation overwhelmingly passed (400 – 20). It targeted Iran’s mining and construction sectors. It called for banning Iranian oil sales by 2015.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Similar Senate legislation is expected. It may be tougher. It may prohibit international investments in more economic sectors.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It may block Iran’s foreign accounts entirely. It may restrict Obama’s ability to unilaterally waive requirements for allies and key trading partners.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Israel demands tougher than ever harshness. So does AIPAC. Don’t expect Obama to object. Throughout his tenure, he supported multiple new sanctions rounds.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
His deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes said Washington isn’t looking to ease sanctions “at the front end” of nuclear talks.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“Before we could pursue sanctions relief, we’d have to see concrete steps by the Iranians to get at the state of their nuclear program,” he said.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The White House wants “flexibility.” It’s code language for unconditional surrender to US demands. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Washington wants what no country would accept. It wants Iran abandoning its legitimate rights.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
For nearly 35 years, Tehran refused to do so. Don’t expect surrender now. Rhodes added:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Whatever Iran does or doesn’t agree to, it “doesn\u2019t mean that Congress won’t consider new sanctions.” <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
“It means that as they do, they should take into account the progress we’re making on diplomacy, and that we need to have some flexibility to pursue an agreement.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Obama on the one hand sounds conciliatory. On the other, he says all options remain on the table. Washington won’t let Iran acquire nuclear weapons, he stresses. No evidence whatever suggests it seeks them.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
On November 7 and 8, more P5+1 talks are scheduled in Geneva. A previous article<\/span><\/a> discussed Iran’s sincere outreach. It deserves a reciprocal response. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
For nearly 35 years, it never got one. It’s hard imagining this time is different. Previous articles explained why. Iran’s peaceful nuclear program is red herring cover for regime change.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Washington tolerates no sovereign independent governments. It wants pro-Western puppet ones replacing them. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It overthrows governments to establish them. It wages wars when other strategies don’t work. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Iran’s been targeted for decades. One day war may follow. Haaretz misled its readers. It headlined “Iran may be one month from nuclear bomb.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It cited US Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) misinformation. It’s done so other times before. David Albright heads ISIS. He lacks credibility.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He impersonates a nuclear expert. He’s a former pseudo-UN weapons investigator. Iraq chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter called him a “nuclear expert who never was.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
His “track record (reveals) half-baked analyses derived from questionable sources…He breathes false legitimacy into these factually challenged stories by” claiming fake credentials.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He founded ISIS. He serves as president. He’s funded to lie. He shuns truth. He fronts for power, privilege, and war profiteers. He lacks scientific expertise. He pretends otherwise. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He’s part of Washington’s anti-Iranian agenda. He reports what administration officials want to hear. In Iraq, he played the same role. He’s a pro-imperial opportunist. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Earlier he lied saying Iran can to produce five nuclear bombs. He implied doing so could be imminent. All nations operating commercial nuclear reactors produce enough fissionable material for bomb-making. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Only a handful do it. Iran isn’t one of them. Nothing suggests otherwise. Albright’s up to his old tricks. He claims<\/span><\/a> Tehran can build a bomb in about a month.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He falsely claimed it has weapons-grade uranium. He called its capabilities at or around “breakout time.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It’s the amount of time needed to convert enough uranium to weapons-grade, he said. Iran’s close to crossing the threshold, he claims. <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It can have a bomb within one to 1.6 months, he stresses. He does so with no credible evidence. His previous accusations proved false. This one is fabricated like earlier ones.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
His role is demonizing Iran. It’s generating fear. “Shortening breakout times have implications for any negotiation,” he said.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Talks “should result it:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n