Objecting to Sanctions

U.S. oil companies and the CIA are changing the way in which the Clinton administration is approaching its relationship to Iran.


The Russian Foreign Ministry has reacted sharply to the bill passed last month by the U.S. Congress stipulating the introduction of sanctions against foreigners and foreign organizations suspected of transferring missile technology to Iran. The Foreign Ministry's stormy reaction in this case is entirely justified. The bill was just as strongly criticized by the Clinton administration.


Although Russia is not named specifically in the text, it is clear that the sanctions are above all aimed at it. "The sanctions should send Russia a clear signal to stop supplying Iran with dangerous technology," the Republican Senator John Keel said. Senate majority leader Trent Lott went even further: "Thanks to aid on the part of a number of Russian organizations, the Iranian missile program has been hugely successful."


The bill was seen in Moscow as a "new attempt by American senators to obstruct the free development of Russia's legal trading relations with Iran." This was especially underscored by the official statement by a representative from the Foreign Ministry.


While calling past resolutions of the Congress unfriendly, the Foreign Ministry has always expressed the hope that they would not reflect negatively on U.S.-Russian bilateral relations. This time, however, the Foreign Ministry representative said the bill "is pursuing the goal of introducing complications in Russian-American relations." The Foreign Ministry issued such a harsh statement, without hesitation, certain that not only would this not arouse any objections from the Clinton administration but would be entirely supported by it.


The Senate handed President Bill Clinton an unwelcome bill. After a similar resolution was adopted last November, the administration made every effort to prevent the bill from passing through the Senate. Last month, Stephan Sestanovich, a State Department official on Commonwealth of Independent States affairs, called on the senators not to rush into imposing sanctions against Russia. He believes that Russia lately has been moving toward a stricter nonproliferation regime, which is also evident in its relations with Iran. "The Kiriyenko government," he said, "must be given time for its proposed new system of measure to work." He also considers that the sanctions would have a reverse effect on Moscow's nonproliferation policies and strengthen the opposition of the communist majority in the State Duma, the lower house of parliament, to the START II arms reduction treaty.


But Washington is not only worried about a negative reaction from Moscow to the bill. "The introduction of sanctions could harm the political and economic relations between the United States and other countries, and discourage governments and citizens from collaborating with the United States in realizing the goal of nonproliferation," the Clinton administration said.


Furthermore, the administration itself had already softened its approach to Iran. The U.S. attitude toward Iran began to shift after Mohammed Khatami, who was elected president last May, made several gestures that unambiguously showed his intention to withdraw Iran from its international isolation and improve relations with the United States and the West as a whole. Such signs included Khatami's appeal to the American people on CNN television this January and the exchange of sports delegations between Iran and the United States.


The Clinton administration's approach is clearly changing under the influence of two groups of lobbyists -- U.S. intelligence and the heads of U.S. oil companies. The press recently published excerpts from a CIA report saying that with moderate pragmatist Khatami's coming to power in Tehran the situation in the country was changing. Unlike the majority of U.S. congressmen, intelligence agents paint a far less sinister picture of the ties between Iran and the Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad terrorists. The Wall Street Journal cited one CIA expert who said, "It is clear to us that Khatami is the same politician he passes himself off as. He himself and his supporters in the government truly want to change Iran's policy of supporting terrorism, and thus promote better ties between Iran and Western countries."


The director of the CIA, George Tenet, openly said in January that "Khatami's election is capable in the final analysis of leading to fundamental changes in the domestic and foreign policies of Iran."


Far more critical of the Congress' harsh measures to Tehran are the heads of U.S. oil companies. Arnie Dunham, president of the U.S. company Sonoco, recently said, "We will do business with Iran and other Persian Gulf countries [apparently an allusion to Iraq] despite the ban of the American Congress." For him and other oil magnates, the bill can only harm U.S. companies.


Against this background, it is not surprising then that Clinton intends to veto the bill. This veto could be overridden by the legislature without much trouble. This would require a minimum of 67 votes from the Senate out of 100. (Ninety senators have already voted in favor of the bill.) The president could prevent the bill from entering into force if he showed that national security interests call for such action. One of the articles of the law gives him the right to do this.


And so, the U.S. Congress has effectively voted to impose sanctions against Russia. The Russian Foreign Ministry and the Clinton administration, for their part, are raising objections.


Alexander Shumilin is a staff writer for Kommersant Daily. He contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.