Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 1998, Pages 24, 103

Special Report

Congress Keeps Pressure on Iran

By Shirl McArthur

Israel has apparently become alarmed at the increasing, though tentative, indications that Iran might be interested in improving relations with the West since the election of Mohammed Khatemi as president, as shown most recently by Iran's ratifying the international treaty banning chemical weapons. Although it would seem to be in Israel's interest to encourage moderation in Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his government have seldom acted in Israel's best interest. Instead, they have stepped up the pressure on their friends in the U.S. Congress to assure that they don't waver in their hostility to Iran.

Always eager to oblige Israel, Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) and Rep. Ben Gilman (R-NY) wrote to President Clinton on Sept. 30 to protest the French oil company Total's agreement to invest in Iran's South Pars gas field and to urge him to "lead the effort to restrict Iran's ability to finance the export of terror and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction" by invoking sanctions against Total under the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. Then, on Oct. 30, D'Amato's Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on "The Implementation of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act," primarily to protest the involvement of the Russian company Gazprom in the South Pars project.

What particularly upset D'Amato, as well as Senate Middle East Subcommittee Chairman Sam Brownback (R-KS), Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Financial Institutions Subcommittee Chairman Lauch Faircloth (R-NC), and Financial Institutions Subcommittee ranking minority member Barbara Boxer (D-CA), all of whom testified, was that Gazprom had announced plans to raise $1 billion in U.S. capital markets and is drawing on a $750 million line of Ex-Im Bank loan guarantees.

All of the senators claimed that this U.S. money would directly or indirectly help Gazprom participate in the South Pars venture. D'Amato said, "We cannot forget that Iran is the foremost sponsor of international terrorism. Iran threatens our national security interests and those of our allies. It is an outlaw in the family of civilized nations. I believe it is totally unacceptable for the U.S.—through the Ex-Im Bank—to provide financing for this outlaw nation." McConnell said he had written to Ex-Im Bank Chairman James Harmon urging that the Bank immediately suspend all pending transactions involving Gazprom unless Gazprom's contract with Iran is terminated. Furthermore, the comment portion of the aid appropriations conference report (see "Congress Watch") includes language referring to Gazprom's involvement in the South Pars deal and urging "the Board of the [Ex-Im] Bank to suspend all Gazprom transactions for a period of review to assure no funds are used for these purposes."

Gilman's tactic raised the ire of both the White House and the State Department.

But that was not enough. In early October, three separate anti-Iran resolutions that had been languishing in committee since their introduction in early July were resurrected. The first two, Senate Resolution 48 and House Resolution 121, were identical and aimed at stopping alleged missile technology exports from Russia to Iran. The resolutions urge Clinton to "demand" that Russia take action to stop governmental and non-governmental entities in Russia from providing missile technology and technological advice to Iran, and, if Russia's response is inadequate, to impose sanctions on the offending entities and to "reassess cooperative activities with Russia." Sen. Jesse Helms's Foreign Relations Committee considered S.R. 48 on Oct. 8, referred it to the full Senate on Nov. 4, and the Senate passed it by voice vote on Nov. 7.

Meanwhile, in the House, Gilman's International Relations Committee brought up H.R. 121 on Oct. 9, and issued several press releases denouncing both Russia and Iran. At about that same time, Gilman resurrected his earlier resolution, H.R. 188, denouncing China for providing Iran with C-802 cruise missiles, calling this a "destabilizing" violation of the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992, and urging the Clinton administration to impose sanctions under the act. Suddenly, however, Gilman got the idea of combining the two resolutions. The operative portions of H.R. 121 were folded into H.R. 188 on Nov. 6, and it was passed the same day by roll-call vote, 414-8, with 11 not voting. The eight congressmen who voted against H.R. 188 were Reps. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), Amo Houghton (R-NY), E.B. Johnson (D-TX), John LaFalce (D-NY), Jim Moran (D-VA), John Murtha (D-PA), David Skaggs (D-CO), and Sidney Yates (D-IL).

Identical Bills

Then, Gilman and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) apparently decided to go even further. On Oct. 23 they introduced identical bills, S. 1311 and H.R. 2709, that would require that sanctions be imposed on any "foreign person with respect to whom there is credible evidence indicating that that person...transferred goods or technology, or provided technical assistance or facilities, that contributed to Iran's efforts to acquire, develop, or produce ballistic missiles." Lott's bill was referred to Helms' committee but was not acted upon, pending the results in the House. There, Gilman's committee immediately acted on H.R. 2709 and on Oct. 24 ordered it to be brought before the full House.

At that point, however, Gilman made a tactical decision that, from his point of view, may have been a mistake. With the support of Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), he decided, in order to "make sure the president takes a careful look at this legislation," to fold into H.R. 2709 the unrelated bill, S. 610, which the Senate had already passed, implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention. This tactic raised the ire of both the White House and the State Department. They issued a Statement of Administration Policy that said that, although S. 610 has strong bipartisan support in the Congress, "if S.610 is attached to H.R. 2709, the secretary of state and the national security adviser would have no choice other than to recommend that the president veto the combined bill."

This did not deter Gilman and Gingrich, and late in the evening of Nov. 12, H.R. 2709, with S. 610 still attached, was brought before the full House. Most of the floor speakers supported the bill with declarations of how dangerous Iran is and how wicked Russia and others are to supply missile technology to Iran.

Only Hamilton spoke strongly against the bill, with a long list of reasons why it would be bad legislation. He repeated the administration's objection that it is not appropriate to attach the Chemical Weapons Convention implementation bill to the sanctions bill. He also said that the issue of technology transfer to Iran should be dealt with through careful diplomacy rather than heavy-handed congressional action. Finally, he pointed out several flaws in the sanctions legislation, including: the short lead time (30 days) between the determination that technology transfer has taken place and the imposition of sanctions; the fact that "credible information" is not defined, which could lead to broad interpretation and the decision to impose sanctions on an innocent party; and the fact that the bill would impose sanctions even on persons who have no knowledge that the items in question are going to Iran or are to be used in missiles. Hamilton's arguments fell on deaf ears—the bill was passed by voice vote.

What the Senate will do with this bill will only become clear after Congress reconvenes in January. Some concern has been raised (mostly by congressmen interested in the Chemical Weapons Convention implementation legislation) that, once the combined bill reaches the Senate, neither will pass. However, the aid appropriations conference report, which was passed on the last days of the congressional session (see "Congress Watch"), includes a clause that withholds 50 percent of aid to Russia unless the president certifies to Congress that Russia has terminated its assistance to Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs or "is taking meaningful steps" to curtail such assistance. Therefore, it is likely that the Senate will again separate the two bills and either send both of them or just the Chemical Weapons Convention implementation bill back to the House.