August 13, 2011
Sen. Mark Kirk versus Rep. Ron Paul on Iran Sanctions
The contentious debates in Ames, Iowa leading up to today’s Iowa straw ballot gave us a glimpse not only of where the Republican candidates stand on economic issues confronting America but a solid insight into where they stand on foreign policy issues as well. The issue of strong economic sanctions against Iran emerged as a highlighted concern during the debate with libertarian candidate Ron Paul (R-Texas) expressing views opposing this week’s bi-partisan Senate effort calling on President Obama to impose full sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran. This effort was spearheaded by Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), with the goal of further strangulating the flow of funds entering Iran being used for its nuclear weapons program. The bi-partisan measure was co-sponsored with Charles Schumer, (D-NY) and supported by 92 U.S. Senators.(Ellen Cannon, “Sen. Kirk Spearheads Intense Sanctions Against Iran Aiming to “Decapitate CBI”, examiner.com 8/11/2011)
Continues ..
According to Senator Kirk, the Central Bank of Iran(CBI) facilitates the operations of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp and the Ministry of Intelligence and lies at the center of Iran’s strategy of circumventing international sanctions in an effort to grow its nuclear weapons program. Sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran would, according to the Wall Street Journal, potentially freeze Iran out of the global financial system and make it nearly impossible for Tehran to clear billions in oil sales every month. The urgency of Senator Kirk’s request to Obama stems from recent information regarding Iran’s capacity to deploy more advanced centrifuge machines for the production of nuclear fuel. (Washington Post, August 5, 2011, Jennifer Rubin)
In contrast to the vast majority of the U.S. Senate who supported greater economic sanctions against a nation perceived as extremely dangerous, Chris Wallace of Fox News asked Congressman Paul during the televised debate from Iowa, why he was “soft” on economic sanctions against Iran. Ron Paul stated that the threat of Iran “was small”, the threat of a danger from Iran was exaggerated , and economic sanctions imposed on Iran “would make matters worse.” Rep. Paul stated, “Even our own CIA gives me this information that they have no evidence that they’re working on a weapon.”
Rep. Paul went on to ask the audience to view Iran’s policy from a different perspective: “Just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All of these countries …why wouldn’t it be natural if they might want a weapon? Internationally, they might be given more respect. Why should we write people off? In the fifties we at least talked to them. At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets during the Cold War. What’s so terrible about this? And countries you put sanctions on you are more likely to fight them. I say a policy of peace is free trade, stay out of their internal business, don’t get involved in these wars, and just bring our troops home.”
Rep. Paul stated that “sanctions make matters worse. “Why would that be so strange if the Soviets and Chinese had nuclear weapons, we tolerated them. And they were a much greater danger. They were the greatest danger to us in our whole history. But you don’t go to war against them.”
As the debate continued Rep. Paul further stated that the propaganda surrounding discussion of Iran could lead us into another war. He stated: You’ve heard the war propaganda that is liable to lead us into the sixth war and I worry about this position. Iran is a threat because they have some militants there, but believe me, they’re all around the world and they’re not a whole lot different than others. Iran does not have an air force that can come here. They can’t even make enough gasoline for themselves…They’re building up this case just like we did with Iraq. Build up the war propaganda. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq…It’s time we quit this. Its trillions of dollars we are spending on these wars.”
Rep. Paul’s view is not shared by leading U.S. policy experts who have examined this issue for several years. Martin Matishak’s recent article clarifies this concern. He writes: “The U.S. and other Western powers have long suspected Iran’s nuclear program is geared toward weapons development, despite Tehran’s assertion that the initiative is intended only for civilian purposes. Iran has culled enough low-enriched uranium to produce fuel for roughly four nuclear weapons, if the material was further refined, according to atomic experts. Tehran in June unveiled plans to move its manufacturing of 20 percent-enriched uranium from Natanz to a subterranean site in Qum and increase the pace of production by roughly threefold. The greater enrichment level could help the Middle East nation to produce weapon grade material, which much must be refined to around 90 percent.” (National Journal, August 12, 2011)
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who wrote the Iran Freedom Support Act, a sanctions bill against Iran, fiercely disagreed with Rep. Paul and shot back: “Iran is not Iceland, Ron. Iran is country that has been at war with us since 1979. Iran is a country that has killed more American men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Iraqis and Afghans have.”
Rep. Michele Bachman shared Santorum’s view stating: “Regarding Iran, Iran is the central issue in the Middle East and their capacity to become a nuclear power. They are one in four state sponsors of terror in the world. I sit on the House Select Committee on Intelligence. I cannot reveal classified information, but I can say this: As President of the United States, I will do everything to make sure that Iran does not become a nuclear power.”
Rep. Paul’s view on Iran can be summarized in a few sentences- It’s time we quit this. It’s trillions of dollars we are spending on these wars. We can no longer afford trillions of dollars to fight wars that do not make sense. We need to mind our own business.
In contrast, Senator Mark Kirk worries about and rejects calls for scaling back America’s role in foreign affairs. In a recent interview with Jamie Weinstein, Kirk said, “We saw with the lessons of the 1930’s what aggressive isolationism can do to the United States, and it led to Pearl Harbor. I am worried now that we have a new isolationism”. In terms of financing international concerns Kirk states, “in some ways we can no longer afford not to have a role in the world affairs.” According to Senator Kirk the revolutions we currently are experiencing in the Middle East have three acts: “Act one: The deposition of the dictator, Act two: A weak transitional government. Act three: the rise of the dictatorship…My worry is we are right in the middle of a very weak act two, in Egypt…The Tantawi dictatorship under the field marshal there. But, by lots of estimates, the Muslim Brotherhood would do very well in the Egyptian elections, if not winning them. And that would be a strategic reversal of tremendous impact on the United States and Israel.”(Jamie Weinstein, Daily Caller)
Senator Kirk is concerned about the debt crisis and continued unemployment but sees a robust foreign policy essential to both national security and domestic concerns. Expressing an opposite view from that of Rep. Paul he states, “I am dedicated to America’s security at home and abroad. We must succeed in Afghanistan and stay on offense in the War on Terror. We cannot allow Iran to develop a nuclear capability. We must stand shoulder to shoulder with democratic allies like Israel and work to open new markets for Illinois exporters.” (kirk.senate.gov)
Senator Kirk’s foreign policy framework views Iran as a fundamental threat to American and global stability. He states: As Iran expands its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and support for international terrorism, we must do more to enforce and strengthen U.S. multilateral sanctions.”(kirk.senate.gov)
Senator Kirk’s leadership role this week in writing an urgent letter to President Obama, co-authored by Senator Charles Schumer, urging increased economic sanctions against the Central bank of Iran, reflects his foreign policy commitments. The letter received bi-partisan support from 92 senators including Senators, Thad Cochran(R-Miss), John McCain (R-AZ), Al Franken(D-MN), Barbara Boxer (D-Cal), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Richard Durbin(D-IL),and Frank Lautenberg(D-NJ).
http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-chicago/sen-mark-kirk-versus-rep-ron-paul-on-iran-sanctions-1
