Obama Response to McCain Attacks on Iran
"With Iran now spinning 3800 centrifuges, threatening Israel, meddling in Iraq, and funding terrorists, the current policy toward Iran that Senator McCain has fully supported is clearly failing. Senator Obama welcomes the diplomatic efforts of our European allies as a step in the right direction, but believes the United States should be at the table as part of that effort and in order to advance a comprehensive approach that offers a package of incentives and disincentives. That's why he cosponsored a bill that would designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization and authored a bill that would direct divestment from Iran. Unfortunately, John McCain has not signed on to Senator Obama's bill. Rather than supporting Senator Obama's bipartisan efforts to pressure Iran, Senator McCain has instead promised four more years of the same failed policies," said Obama campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan.
OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY URGED THAT IRAN'S REVOLUTIONARY GUARD BE LABELED WHAT IT IS: A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION
Obama Cosponsored The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, Which Would Designate The Iranian Revolutionary Guard As A Terrorist Organ, Prohibit Trade With Iran, Freeze Iranian Officials' Assets, Help Combat Terrorist Financing. In 2007, Obama cosponsored legislation expressing the Senate of the Senate on a variety of existing and proposed sanctions against Iran and providing mechanisms to assure a supply of nuclear fuel for peaceful means. "This legislation urges the Administration to pursue measures in the international financial sector to restrict financing in Iran and encourages foreign state-owned entities to cease investment in Iran's energy sector. It prohibits all imports from and exports to Iran. It forbids any action that would extend preferential trade treatment to Iran or that would lead to Iranian accession to the WTO. And it freezes assets of senior Iranian officials and their families...The bill prevents the United States from moving forward with a multi-billion dollar nuclear cooperation agreement with Moscow until the President certifies that Russia has suspended its nuclear assistance and the transfers of any conventional weapons and missiles to Iran...The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act also seeks to bring to light the names of companies that continue to feel it is appropriate to do business with the mullahs in Tehran. It requires the Administration to submit an annual report to Congress listing any foreign investments in Iran's energy sector since January 1 of this year and a determination on whether such investment is sanctionable under the Iran Sanctions Act. And it requires a report listing companies with American operations, whether or not they are incorporated in the United States, which invest in Iran...This legislation will reduce our contributions to the World Bank by the percentage of total money the World Bank loans to entities in Iran...The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act calls on the Administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and to add it to the Treasury's list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists. Funding is increased for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence to strengthen the Treasury's efforts to combat unlawful or terrorist financing...This legislation designates $10 million in funding to enhance our friendship with the people of Iran by identifying young Iranians to visit the United States under U.S. exchange programs." [S. 970, 110th Congress, Introduced 3/22/07; Congressional Record, 3/22/07]
Obama Spokesman: Obama Supports Designating The Revolutionary Guard As A Terrorist Organization And Said Obama Objected To Aggressive Passages In The Resolution. Politico.com reported, "Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Obama supports designating the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization. He objects, Burton said, to another passage of the resolution, which finds that: The manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of... Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region." [Politico, 9/7/07 <http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Clarifying_Obamas_Iran_stance.html> ]
OBAMA OPPOSED KYL-LIEBERMAN BECAUSE ITS LANGUAGE SAID THE US MILITARY IN IRAQ SHOULD BE USED TO COUNTER IRAN, WHILE IN FACT IT HAS STRENGTHENED IRAN
Factcheck.org Said That It Is “False” That Obama Didn't Support Kyl-Lieberman Because He Didn't Want To Name The IRGC A Terrorist Group. Factcheck.org wrote, “We do know that McCain's claim that Obama's opposition to the bill was based on an unwillingness to label the IRGC as terrorists is false.” [Factcheck.org, 6/5/08 <http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/soft_on_iran.html> ]
Obama: We Must Tighten Sanctions on Iran's Revolutionary Guard Because It Sponsors Terrorism, But This Must Be Done Separately From Checking Iranian Influence With the Military Presence in Iraq. Obama wrote in an op-ed, "I strongly differ with Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was the only Democratic presidential candidate to support this reckless amendment. We do need to tighten sanctions on the Iranian regime, particularly on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which sponsors terrorism far beyond Iran's borders. But this must be done separately from any unnecessary saber-rattling about checking Iranian influence with our ‘military presence in Iraq.' Above all, it must be done through tough and direct diplomacy with Iran, which I have supported, and which Sen. Clinton has called "naive and irresponsible." [Union Leader, 10/11/07 <http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=a41d44e5-0c56-4353-b9f6-5eda09c81236&headline=Sen.+Barack+Obama%3a+Five+years+after+Iraq+war+vote%2c+we%27re+still+foolishly+rattling+our+sabers> ]
Campaign Statement: "Senator Obama Clearly Recognizes The Serious Threat Posed By Iran," However, "He Thinks That Our Large Troop Presence In Iraq Has Served To Strengthen Iran - Not Weaken It." The Obama campaign said in a statement, "Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the President that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today." [Obama Press Release, 9/26/07 <http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Obama_No_on_KylLieberman.html> ]
Kyl-Lieberman Stated That The U.S. Military Presence In Iraq Will Have Long Term Consequences For The Future" Of The Middle East And "In Particular" Iran And That U.S. Military Instruments In Iraq Should Be Used To Support A Policy Of Rolling Back Iran's Influence. "(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate-- (1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy; (3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies; (4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies." [SA 3017 to SA 2011, 110th Congress, Introduced 9/26/07]
Obama Said That Sanctions On The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Must Not Be Linked To Keeping Troops In Iraq Or Taking Military Action Against Iran. Obama said in a release, "It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which supports terrorism. But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran. Unfortunately, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment made the case for President Bush that we need to use our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran - a case that has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard." [Press Release, 10/25/07]
MCCAIN OPPOSED CLOSING LOOPHOLE THAT ALLOWED US COMPANIES TO DO BUSINESS WITH IRAN
McCain Voted Against Closing Legal Loophole That Allows Foreign Subsidiaries Of U.S. Companies To Do Business With Iran, Syria, Other Nations Subjection To U.S. Sanctions; Obama, Kyl, And Lieberman Voted to Close the Legal Loophole. In 2005, Obama voted for and McCain voted against a Lautenberg Amendment that would have stopped corporations from financing terrorism by closing, according to Congressional Quarterly, “a legal loophole that has allowed foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to do business with countries such as Iran and Syria that are subject to U.S. sanctions.” According to Lautenberg, the amendment's sponsor, the measure “shuts down a source of revenue that flows to terrorists and rogue regimes that threaten our security…Amazingly, some of our corporations are providing revenue to terrorists by doing business with these rogue regimes. My amendment is simple. It closes a loophole in the law that allows this to happen, that allows American companies to do business with enemies of ours. This will cut off a major source of revenue for terrorists. What we need to do is to starve these terrorists at the source. By using this loophole, some of our companies are feeding terrorism by doing business with Iran, which funds Hamas, Hezbollah, as well as the Islamic Jihad…So how do U.S. companies get around terrorist sanctions laws? Because we have those laws that are supposed to prevent contact and opportunity for those nations that support terrorism. The process is simple. These companies run the Iranian operations out of a foreign subsidiary…Our sanctions laws prohibit United States companies from doing business with Iran, but the law contains a loophole. It enables an American company, a U.S. company's foreign subsidiaries, to do business prohibited by the parent. As long as this loophole is in place, our sanctions laws have no teeth. My amendment would close this loophole once and for all. It would say foreign subsidiaries controlled by a U.S. parent, American parent, would have to follow U.S. sanctions laws--pretty simple.” [Vote 203, Amendment Rejected 47-51: D: 43-0; R: 3-51; I: 1-0; 7/26/05; CQ Weekly, 7/29/05; Congressional Record, 7/21/05]
OBAMA SPONSORED IRAN SANCTIONS BILL AS A MEANS TO STOP IRAN FROM ACQUIRING NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Obama Sponsored The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act; Iran Divestment Legislation Passed The House of Representatives 408-6. In 2007, Obama sponsored the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which would: make it the policy of the United States to support the decision of state and local governments and educational institutions to divest from, and to prohibit the investment of assets they control in, persons included on the most recent list; shield any registered investment company from civil, criminal, or administrative action based upon its divesting from, or avoiding investing in, securities issued by companies included on such most recent list; and would authorize state and local governments to direct divestiture from, and prevent investment in, companies with investments of $20,000,000 or more in Iran's energy sector, and for other purposes. The bill would also require the Treasury Dept. to publish biannually in the Federal Register a list of each person, whether within or outside of the United States, that has an investment of more than $20 million in the energy sector in Iran; and maintain on the website of the Department of the Treasury the names of the persons on such list. A House version of Obama's bill passed that chamber on 7/31/07. [S.1430 <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN01430:> , Introduced 5/17/07, Referred to the Committee on Banking, House and Urban Affairs; H.R. 2347, Passed/agreed to in the House, 7/31/07; On the Motion to suspend the rules, by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): Role No. 765, 408-6]
· McCain Supporter Thune Co-Sponsored Divestment Bill, McCain Did Not. John Thune, a McCain supporter who attacked Obama on Iran, cosponsored a bill to divest from Iran with Barack Obama. John McCain did not cosponsor the bill. [S.1430 <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN01430:> , Introduced 5/17/07]
· McCain Unfamiliar With Obama Iranian Divestment Bill, Despite Two Top Advisors Being Co-Sponsors, and Divestment Being A Central Component of His Strategy On Iran. In a June 4th press conference attacking Senator Obama's record and commitment to Israel, Senator McCain responded to questions about why he hadn't signed on to a bill proposed by Senator Obama to advance divestment from Iran. As the Associated Press noted, McCain admitted that he was not familiar with the bill, saying “I don't know if it passed the Senate or had any hearing or anything else.” However, Senator Lieberman and Representative Cantor – two of his top advisors – are cosponsors of the bill, and divestment in Iran is a central part of McCain strategy toward Iran. [McCain Press Conference 6/4/08; Associated Press, 6/3/08; S.1430, 5/17/07; H.R. 2347, 5/16/07]
Obama: "Passage Of The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act By The House Of Representatives Is An Important Step Forward In Our Efforts To Stop Iran From Acquiring The Nuclear Weapons It Seeks." Obama said in a statement, "Today's passage of the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act by the House of Representatives is an important step forward in our efforts to stop Iran from acquiring the nuclear weapons it seeks. Allowing a radical theocracy that sponsors terrorism and threatens its neighbors to possess such dangerous weapons is a risk we cannot afford to take. Together with our allies, we need to do much more to ratchet up the economic pressure on Iran, in order to convince it not to go down this road. In addition to a sustained diplomatic effort and stronger international sanctions, we have the ability to take more action unilaterally. Citizens in many states have taken matters into their own hands, moving to divest their pension funds of companies that support Iran's oil and gas industry, which provides the revenue Iran uses to pursue nuclear weapons and sponsor terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas...The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, once enacted, will provided needed information about which companies are supporting Iran's energy industry, clarify that state and local governments have the authority to divest of such companies, and provide legal protection for those governments that wish to do so." [Obama Senate release, 7/31/07 <http://obama.senate.gov/press/070731-obama_urges_swi/> ]
Obama: Divestment Bill Would Increase Iran's Isolation and Hit the Iranian Regime "Where it Hurts." Obama wrote in an op-ed, "For diplomacy to work, we need to dial up our political and economic pressure - not just our tough talk. Iran's troubling behavior depends in large part on access to billions of dollars in oil and gas revenue. That is why I introduced the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act last May, to build on a movement across the country to divest from companies that do significant business with Iran. This would send a clear message about where America stands, increasing Iran's isolation and hitting the Iranian regime where it hurts. The bill works in three ways. First, it would educate investors and pressure foreign companies to reconsider doing business with Iran by requiring the U.S. government to publish - every six months - a list of companies that invest more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector. Second, it would give explicit congressional authorization to state and local governments to divest the assets of their pension funds and other funds under their control from any company on the list. Third, it would give private fund managers who divest protection from lawsuits, while urging the government's own 401(k) fund to create "terror-free" and "genocide-free" investment options for government employees." [Obama Daily News Op-Ed, 8/30/07 <http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/08/30/2007-08-30_hit_iran_where_it_hurts.html> ]
Obama: Iranian Government Uses Billions From Oil and Gas to Build Its Nuclear Program and Fund Terrorist Groups. Obama said in a release when he introduced the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, "The Iranian government uses the billions of dollars it earns from its oil and gas industry to build its nuclear program and to fund terrorist groups that export its militaristic and radical ideology to Iraq and throughout the Middle East." Obama added, "Pressuring companies to cut their financial ties with Iran is critical to ensuring that sanctions have their intended result. All Americans can play a role in pressuring companies to cut their ties with the Iranian regime, a state sponsor of terror that is a threat to our allies in the region and international security, as a means of convincing Iran to fundamentally change its policies." [Obama Release, 5/31/07]
Obama: "Until We Have Gathered The International Community To Put The Squeeze On Iran Economically, Then We Shouldn't Be Having Conversations About Attacks On Iran." Obama said, "Now, we are a stalwart ally of Israel and I think it is important to understand that we will back them up in terms of their security. But it is critical to understand that -- until we have taken the diplomatic routes that are required to tighten economic sanctions – I have a plan right now to make sure that private pension funds in this country can divest from their holdings in Iran. Until we have gathered the international community to put the squeeze on Iran economically, then we shouldn't be having conversations about attacks on Iran...I make an absolute commitment that we will do everything we need to do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. One of the things we have to try, though, is to talk directly to Iran; something that we have not been doing." [NH DNC Debate, 9/26/07]
OBAMA'S DIVESTMENT BILL BEING BLOCKED BY REPUBLICANS
Block On Obama's Divestment Bill >From Sen. Shelby; "He Is Suspected Of Holding The Bill As A Favor For A Reluctant Administration." "The facts are quite simple: Barack Obama's bill against Iran is stuck in the Senate. Senator Richard Shelby is putting a hold on it. The explanation is more complicated, among other things because Shelby doesn't feel the need to explain his decision in detail. Supposedly, he is doing it for procedural reasons, but there's some suspicion among people familiar with the story that it's actually a favor he is doing to the Bush administration - which doesn't want the bill to pass. Bottom line, there's no bill for now. But the Obama people think the Senator isn't going to give up on it so easily. If Shelby wants to block the bill, let him explain it - or maybe shame him into it...He has a procedural claim concerning the bill. Since it deals with a monetary issue, he says, it needs to go through the banking committee of which he is a member...Truth is, that nobody really believes Shelby when he says it is all because of the banking committee. He is suspected of holding the bill as a favor for a reluctant administration." [Haaretz blog, 8/28/07 <http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=898322&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1> ]
Bush Administration Said it Opposed Divestment Bill Because They Said It "Could Jeopardize The Support Of Our Allies For Multilateral Actions Against The Regimes In These Countries." "The Bush administration has notified Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois that it ‘can't support' the bills intended to help states and funds divest from Iran and Sudan, Haaretz learned on Tuesday. In a letter sent to Durbin within the past four weeks, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department Kevin Fromer explains the reservations the administration has regarding these bills, among them, the fear that such legislation ‘could jeopardize the support of our allies for multilateral actions against the regimes in these countries.'...In the letter from the Treasury Department, the administration explains its resistance to several divestment bills. ‘The Treasury Department shares Congress' concerns about the actions of state sponsors of terrorism,' it says, ‘and agrees that economic pressure is a component of any comprehensive strategy to alter the behavior of these regimes." However, it says, ‘Imposing meaningful financial pressure requires the cooperation and joint actions of other countries.' In the case of Iran, claims the administration, pressure is mounting precisely because the United States is not acting alone. Fromer, assistant secretary for legislative affairs, claims that ‘requiring the U.S. government to produce a list targeting the lawful conduct of companies based in allied nations is unhelpful to our multilateral approach.' He advises the Senate to pursue other means, like improving ‘the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure requirements.'" [Haaretz, 8/29/07]
