[Peace-discuss] Obama continues to threaten Iran

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Israeli PM Sharon said, the fall before the invasion of Iraq, "First 
Iraq, then Iran."  Barack Obama is down with the program.  The following 
is from the blog of the chief U.S. correspondent for the Israeli paper 
Ha'artetz, Shmuel Rosner. --CGE]

	Posted: May 16, 2007
	Obama to Haaretz: More pressure on Iran urgently needed

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a leading candidate for the Democratic 
Presidential ticket, has decided to take a more active role in the fight 
against the Iranian nuclear program.

"Iran continues to be a major threat," he told me Wednesday morning, 
"both the U.S. and to some of our allies." And he calls for an urgent 
enhancement of "the economic pressure." He calls for it, and he acts on 
it with the introduction of a new bill: the 'Iran Sanctions Enabling Act.'

He is still in favor of talking to the Iranians, no pre-conditions 
attached, but made some interesting statements clarifying his position 
in our conversation.

I asked whether the U.S. should talk with Tehran even as the centrifuges 
are still spinning and producing more enriched uranium. Obama's answer 
is both yes and no: "Its important to have low-level talks" with Iran 
even without them freezing the enrichment, he said.

However, high-level talks "will not be appropriate without some sense of 
progress" on the enrichment issue. Obama said that the talks with Iran 
initiated by the Bush administration over Iraq are a "step in the right 
direction." It will "establish a pattern of dialogue" with Iran, Obama 
hopes.

He kept criticizing the administration, however, for neglecting to 
negotiate for the last couple of years. "We need to check" if there are 
leaders in Iran with "a more sensible attitude" than the one expressed 
by the president. The U.S., Obama believes, should provide Iran with a 
"clear roadmap for improved relations" if it agrees to abandon its 
military nuclear program.

As expected, Obama is reluctant to discuss any measures other than 
diplomatic and economic pressure (he uses the 
no-options-taken-off-the-table formula, as usual). He won't take the 
gung-ho approach one could see in the Republican debate two weeks ago. 
Obama, mind you, is a Democrat. Is it absolutely crucial to prevent Iran 
from acquiring nuclear weapons? "Yes." Using whatever measures that 
might be needed? "I will go back to what I said earlier" (the 
no-options-off-the-table reply).

He is, however, ready to let people see the distinction between his 
positions and those expressed by the far left of the Democratic Party. 
This was visible in the presidential debate a week ago. Dennis Kucinich 
attacked Obama for saying that "all options are on the table? Its 
important for people to reflect on the real meaning of that, that you're 
setting the stage for another war." And Obama attacked back: "I think it 
would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran. But have 
no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us 
that is a profound security threat for America and one that we have to 
take seriously."

Now, he is also becoming a leader in legislating against the regime in 
Tehran, making it clear that the challenge of preventing Iran from 
acquiring nuclear weapons is part of his agenda - not merely a cause 
that he is paying a lip service to. "Clearly," he says, "Iran made 
progress in its enrichment program" and this only increases a "sense of 
urgency." Iran will not change its behavior without pressure, Obama 
says. "I'm not naive" enough to believe that they will, "or optimistic" 
that they will do anything without more measures taken. An Obama bill, 
accompanied by a similar bill in the House, sponsored by N.Y. 
Congressman Barney Frank (Frank and Rep. Tom Lantos had a press 
conference earlier Wednesday) is aimed at assisting the new trend of 
divestment from Iran's energy sector. Provide for one measure of 
pressure-building.

In Florida, a bill could require the state's $118 billion pension fund 
to sell off stocks in companies dealing with Iran and Sudan. "There is a 
flurry of activity is various American states and their local 
legislatures" toward the same end, I wrote two months ago. In some of 
these initiatives AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, is also playing a role.

The Obama bill will require the federal government to publish a list of 
companies that have an investment of more than $20 million in the 
Iranian energy sector, and will be updated every six months. This list 
will be the tool, providing investors with the knowledge they need as to 
divest from the right companies. It will also authorize local 
governments actually divest their pension funds, or any other funds, 
from companies on the list. Fund managers will be protected from 
lawsuits directed at them by investors who are unhappy with the decision 
to divest.

These measures were designed to meet possible challenges to decisions 
both by legislators and managers. A couple of years ago the Supreme 
Court struck a Massachusetts law penalizing companies doing business in 
Burma. "The president's maximum power to persuade rests on his capacity 
to bargain for the benefits of access to the entire national economy 
without exception for enclaves fenced off willy-nilly by inconsistent 
political tactics," wrote the judges. This is one outcome of the 
divestment movement that the Obama bill is set to prevent. "The states 
need clarity on this issue, and this bill will give them such clarity," 
he says.

Divestment from Iran, Obama believes, is an "appropriate strategy." His 
bill is almost identical to the House version, but has one small 
additional component: It can only sunset once the government of Iran has 
retracted the statements of the president of Iran calling for the 
destruction of Israel.

	###