Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congressional Committee Gets Tough On Iran (Iran Freedom Support Act Advances Alert)
Jerusalem Post ^ | 03/16/06 | Natan Guttman

Posted on 03/15/2006 7:55:15 PM PST by goldstategop

A US Congressional committee approved Wednesday a new bill which is intended to toughen the sanctions against Iran and target international firms that invest in the Iran energy industry.

The Iran Freedom Support Act was approved in the House International Relations Committee by a 37 to 3 majority, but despite the overwhelming support it gained, it is not yet clear when it will be brought to the House floor for a vote, mainly due to the administration's opposition to the new legislation.

The proposed legislation, sponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Howard Berman (D-CA) has 347 co-sponsors. It calls for tightening the existing sanctions against Iran and for action against foreign firms that conduct business with Iran, in order to exert economic pressure on the Teheran regime.

The House version of the bill demands that any foreign company that invests over $20 million in Iran's energy industry be reported and that US firms will be required to divest from these companies and not to invest in them in the future.

The proposed legislation also toughens the restrictions stated in a former law - The Iran Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) which imposes sanctions on foreign firms that make significant investments in Iran's petroleum industry.

The sponsors of the new bill claim that the administration was too lenient in imposing sanctions according to the existing law, and that is the reason there is need for a new legislation which would force the administration to act against these firms.

Since the ILSA law was passed in 1996 only one firm was found in violation of its rules. The firm was not sanctioned because former president Clinton used his waiver and determined that due to national security considerations there should be no action taken against the firm.

The Bush administration has expressed publicly its opposition to the Iran Freedom Support Act, claiming it would complicate the US's diplomatic efforts to build an international front against Iran. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said last week in a congressional hearing that the administration believes that the existing legislation concerning Iran is sufficient and that the new proposed bill might divide the international community.

"We want to keep the focus on Iran's misdeeds, not create friction and division in the camp that is confronting Iran", Burns told Congress.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bushadministration; congress; iran; irfreedomsupportact; jerusalempost
Congress is moving to pass the Iran Freedom Support Act to which the Bush Administration is inexplicably opposed. I don't care what the international community thinks. America ought to be by principle, on the side of freedom in Iran.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

1 posted on 03/15/2006 7:55:18 PM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

We are strategically moving bit by bit towards war with Iran, painting them in a worse and worse light with each week that passes, giving the American public time to become comfortable with it before we start bombing.


2 posted on 03/15/2006 8:00:20 PM PST by TampaDude (If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the PROBLEM!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I am a bit troubled by the POTUS's position on this one. In essence, no one wants to inact sanctions against Iran. Business must come first, globalization ya know. And the mad man in Tehran understands this fully. Iran will produce nuclear devices and no one is going to stop them. If all nations promised not to sell them uranium ore. And if Russian stopped providing them with further nuclear technology as well as fuel rods, and European nations and others would stop selling them all forms of high tech equipment both for use in nuclear facilities as well as related fields, and Russia, China, and NK agreed to stop selling them weapon systems, Iran would simply go down the drain. All their cards would have been played out.
All Iran has is a lot of oil and the second largest proven gas reserve in the world. And surely they would not cut off their nose by not continueing to sell these products to the rest of the world.
3 posted on 03/15/2006 8:14:56 PM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TampaDude

We did that with Iraq for over 10 years, and certain components of our society never "got used to" the idea of going after Iraq.

No matter how we pave the way, a powerful segment of our society is going to kick and scream their opposition to any American action against Iran.


4 posted on 03/15/2006 8:23:17 PM PST by joseph20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: joseph20
No matter how we pave the way, a powerful segment of our society is going to kick and scream their opposition to any American action against Iran.

Yeah, but they don't control the White House and both houses of Congress.

5 posted on 03/16/2006 8:47:08 AM PST by TampaDude (If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the PROBLEM!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson