Iran's Nuclear Ambition

IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITION -- (House of Representatives - September 19, 2006)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the President of Iran has just addressed the United Nations General Assembly. He well could have declared victory. Hezbollah, a creature of Iran, created and funded by Iran, attacked Israel. The resulting conflict diverted attention from Iran's nuclear program and bolstered Iran's position in the Middle East. Our invasion of Iraq has removed from the chess board what was once a bloody rival of Iran for power in its own region, and now Iraq saps America's strength.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to New York with a stamp of approval for his country's nuclear program from the 100-plus members of the nonaligned movement, where he led a festival of America-bashing.

Most importantly, Ahmadinejad has brazenly ignored the August 31 deadline from the United Nations Security Council to cease enrichment of nuclear fuel.

A nuclear Iran would be a catastrophe. That regime has already been listed as number one on the list of state sponsors of terrorism year after year by our own State Department.

With nuclear weapons, Iran could blatantly sponsor the most horrific terrorist events, feeling itself immune from retaliation.

The Iranian regime could terrify its Muslim neighbors and interrupt their oil exports. Conversely, it could inspire Middle East States to develop their own nuclear weapons. If the Tehran regime got just a little bit crazier than they are, it could smuggle a weapon into the United States and then threaten to explode it if we did not change our policies.

Finally, if that regime were about to be overthrown, and many of us look forward to that day, it could use its nuclear weapons against its own people, or it could use them against Israel as a final parting act.

Ahmadinejad declared in one of his recent famous diatribes that the United States should bow down and surrender.

Mr. Amadinijad, we already have. Our unilateral concessions began in 1999 when we opened our markets to Iranian exports, not oil which we could use, but only the stuff Iran cannot sell elsewhere like caviar.

Since then we have acquiesced in World Bank loans to the Iranian Government. We allow corporations to do business in Iran through their foreign subsidiaries. And last year we opened the door to Iran's membership in the WTO. For 6 years, the Bush administration has violated U.S. law by refusing to apply the Iran-Libya Sanctions Acts to billions of dollars of investments in the Iranian oil sector. All this while energy sanctions were effective in changing Libya's behavior.

Most recently, Condoleezza Rice and President Bush personally approved a visa for a five-city U.S. propaganda tour by Amadinijad's predecessor, former Iranian President Khatami. Amazingly, the U.S. taxpayer picked up part of the tab for Khatami's terrorism promotion tour. We paid for the security. As you remember, the last time there were American officials in Iran, there wasn't much security and they were taken hostage and held for 44 days.

There is a certain symmetry to all this, Mr. Speaker. According to the 9/11 Commission, during the administration of Khatami, Iran used its taxpayer dollars to provide safe harbor and protection to al Qaeda terrorists. Now U.S. tax dollars are used to provide safe harbor and protection for Khatami.

The failure of this administration to persuade the U.N. Security Council, particularly Russia and China, to impose sanctions on Iran for developing nuclear weapons is the greatest diplomatic failure of our time. Why have they failed? Because they refuse the concept of linkage. We seek Russia's help on Iran while refusing to make the slightest concession on issues Russia cares about like Moldavia, Chechnya, Obkazia, any reasonable U.S. policy which subordinates these issues that are minor to us to the goal of preventing a nuclear Iran.

Likewise, we refuse to link how China deals with Iran with how we deal with China on trade issues, such as how we choose to respond to their legally questionable currency manipulations.

Mr. Speaker, the options are clear. We can use all our economic and diplomatic power, including linkage, to stop Amadinijad's nuclear weapon program, or we can bow down and surrender.

Actually, the Bush administration has embraced a third option. Talk tough, avoid effective action, especially linkage, and take solace in the fact that the policy failure will not become manifest and Iran will not develop and test a nuclear weapon until after 2008. Bush refuses linkage. We are doomed to a nuclear Iran

http://thomas.loc.gov