Organizing for America

Response to McCain Attack on Iran

OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY URGED THAT IRAN'S REVOLUTIONARY GUARD BE LABELED WHAT IT IS: A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION

Obama Cosponsored The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, Which Would Designate The Iranian Revolutionary Guard As A Terrorist Organ, Prohibit Trade With Iran, Freeze Iranian Officials' Assets, Help Combat Terrorist Financing. In 2007, Obama cosponsored legislation expressing the Senate of the Senate on a variety of existing and proposed sanctions against Iran and providing mechanisms to assure a supply of nuclear fuel for peaceful means. "This legislation urges the Administration to pursue measures in the international financial sector to restrict financing in Iran and encourages foreign state-owned entities to cease investment in Iran's energy sector. It prohibits all imports from and exports to Iran. It forbids any action that would extend preferential trade treatment to Iran or that would lead to Iranian accession to the WTO. And it freezes assets of senior Iranian officials and their families...The bill prevents the United States from moving forward with a multi-billion dollar nuclear cooperation agreement with Moscow until the President certifies that Russia has suspended its nuclear assistance and the transfers of any conventional weapons and missiles to Iran...The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act also seeks to bring to light the names of companies that continue to feel it is appropriate to do business with the mullahs in Tehran. It requires the Administration to submit an annual report to Congress listing any foreign investments in Iran's energy sector since January 1 of this year and a determination on whether such investment is sanctionable under the Iran Sanctions Act. And it requires a report listing companies with American operations, whether or not they are incorporated in the United States, which invest in Iran...This legislation will reduce our contributions to the World Bank by the percentage of total money the World Bank loans to entities in Iran...The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act calls on the Administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and to add it to the Treasury's list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists. Funding is increased for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence to strengthen the Treasury's efforts to combat unlawful or terrorist financing...This legislation designates $10 million in funding to enhance our friendship with the people of Iran by identifying young Iranians to visit the United States under U.S. exchange programs." [S. 970, 110th Congress, Introduced 3/22/07; Congressional Record, 3/22/07]

Obama Spokesman: Obama Supports Designating The Revolutionary Guard As A Terrorist Organization And Said Obama Objected To Aggressive Passages In The Resolution. Politico.com reported, "Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Obama supports designating the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization. He objects, Burton said, to another passage of the resolution, which finds that: The manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of... Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region." [Politico, 9/7/07]

OBAMA OPPOSED KYL-LIEBERMAN BECAUSE ITS LANGUAGE SAID THE US MILITARY IN IRAQ SHOULD BE USED TO COUNTER IRAN, WHILE IN FACT IT HAS STRENGTHENED IRAN

Campaign Statement: "Senator Obama Clearly Recognizes The Serious Threat Posed By Iran," However, "He Thinks That Our Large Troop Presence In Iraq Has Served To Strengthen Iran - Not Weaken It." The Obama campaign said in a statement, "Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the President that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today." [Obama Press Release, 9/26/07]

· Kyl-Lieberman Stated That The U.S. Military Presence In Iraq Will Have Long Term Consequences For The Future" Of The Middle East And "In Particular" Iran And That U.S. Military Instruments In Iraq Should Be Used To Support A Policy Of Rolling Back Iran's Influence. "(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate-- (1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy; (3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies; (4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies." [SA 3017 to SA 2011, 110th Congress, Introduced 9/26/07]

Obama: We Must Tighten Sanctions on Iran's Revolutionary Guard Because It Sponsors Terrorism, But This Must Be Done Separately From Checking Iranian Influence With the Military Presence in Iraq. Obama wrote in an op-ed, "I strongly differ with Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was the only Democratic presidential candidate to support this reckless amendment. We do need to tighten sanctions on the Iranian regime, particularly on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which sponsors terrorism far beyond Iran's borders. But this must be done separately from any unnecessary saber-rattling about checking Iranian influence with our ‘military presence in Iraq.' Above all, it must be done through tough and direct diplomacy with Iran, which I have supported, and which Sen. Clinton has called "naive and irresponsible." [Union Leader, 10/11/07]

Obama Said That Sanctions On The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Must Not Be Linked To Keeping Troops In Iraq Or Taking Military Action Against Iran. Obama said in a release, "It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which supports terrorism. But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran. Unfortunately, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment made the case for President Bush that we need to use our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran - a case that has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard." [Press Release, 10/25/07]

OBAMA SPONSORED IRAN SANCTIONS BILL AS A MEANS TO STOP IRAN FROM ACQUIRING NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Obama Sponsored The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act; Iran Divestment Legislation Passed The House of Representatives 408-6. In 2007, Obama sponsored the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which would: make it the policy of the United States to support the decision of state and local governments and educational institutions to divest from, and to prohibit the investment of assets they control in, persons included on the most recent list; shield any registered investment company from civil, criminal, or administrative action based upon its divesting from, or avoiding investing in, securities issued by companies included on such most recent list; and would authorize state and local governments to direct divestiture from, and prevent investment in, companies with investments of $20,000,000 or more in Iran's energy sector, and for other purposes. The bill would also require the Treasury Dept. to publish biannually in the Federal Register a list of each person, whether within or outside of the United States, that has an investment of more than $20 million in the energy sector in Iran; and maintain on the website of the Department of the Treasury the names of the persons on such list. A House version of Obama's bill passed that chamber on 7/31/07. [S.1430, Introduced 5/17/07, Referred to the Committee on Banking, House and Urban Affairs; H.R. 2347, Passed/agreed to in the House, 7/31/07; On the Motion to suspend the rules, by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): Role No. 765, 408-6]

Obama: "Passage Of The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act By The House Of Representatives Is An Important Step Forward In Our Efforts To Stop Iran From Acquiring The Nuclear Weapons It Seeks." Obama said in a statement, "Today's passage of the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act by the House of Representatives is an important step forward in our efforts to stop Iran from acquiring the nuclear weapons it seeks. Allowing a radical theocracy that sponsors terrorism and threatens its neighbors to possess such dangerous weapons is a risk we cannot afford to take. Together with our allies, we need to do much more to ratchet up the economic pressure on Iran, in order to convince it not to go down this road. In addition to a sustained diplomatic effort and stronger international sanctions, we have the ability to take more action unilaterally. Citizens in many states have taken matters into their own hands, moving to divest their pension funds of companies that support Iran's oil and gas industry, which provides the revenue Iran uses to pursue nuclear weapons and sponsor terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas...The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, once enacted, will provided needed information about which companies are supporting Iran's energy industry, clarify that state and local governments have the authority to divest of such companies, and provide legal protection for those governments that wish to do so." [Obama Senate release, 7/31/07]

Obama: Divestment Bill Would Increase Iran's Isolation and Hit the Iranian Regime "Where it Hurts." Obama wrote in an op-ed, "For diplomacy to work, we need to dial up our political and economic pressure - not just our tough talk. Iran's troubling behavior depends in large part on access to billions of dollars in oil and gas revenue. That is why I introduced the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act last May, to build on a movement across the country to divest from companies that do significant business with Iran. This would send a clear message about where America stands, increasing Iran's isolation and hitting the Iranian regime where it hurts. The bill works in three ways. First, it would educate investors and pressure foreign companies to reconsider doing business with Iran by requiring the U.S. government to publish - every six months - a list of companies that invest more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector. Second, it would give explicit congressional authorization to state and local governments to divest the assets of their pension funds and other funds under their control from any company on the list. Third, it would give private fund managers who divest protection from lawsuits, while urging the government's own 401(k) fund to create "terror-free" and "genocide-free" investment options for government employees." [Obama Daily News Op-Ed, 8/30/07]

Obama: Iranian Government Uses Billions From Oil and Gas to Build Its Nuclear Program and Fund Terrorist Groups. Obama said in a release when he introduced the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, "The Iranian government uses the billions of dollars it earns from its oil and gas industry to build its nuclear program and to fund terrorist groups that export its militaristic and radical ideology to Iraq and throughout the Middle East." Obama added, "Pressuring companies to cut their financial ties with Iran is critical to ensuring that sanctions have their intended result. All Americans can play a role in pressuring companies to cut their ties with the Iranian regime, a state sponsor of terror that is a threat to our allies in the region and international security, as a means of convincing Iran to fundamentally change its policies." [Obama Release, 5/31/07]

Obama: "Until We Have Gathered The International Community To Put The Squeeze On Iran Economically, Then We Shouldn't Be Having Conversations About Attacks On Iran." Obama said, "Now, we are a stalwart ally of Israel and I think it is important to understand that we will back them up in terms of their security. But it is critical to understand that -- until we have taken the diplomatic routes that are required to tighten economic sanctions – I have a plan right now to make sure that private pension funds in this country can divest from their holdings in Iran. Until we have gathered the international community to put the squeeze on Iran economically, then we shouldn't be having conversations about attacks on Iran...I make an absolute commitment that we will do everything we need to do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. One of the things we have to try, though, is to talk directly to Iran; something that we have not been doing." [NH DNC Debate, 9/26/07]

OBAMA'S DIVESTMENT BILL BEING BLOCKED BY REPUBLICANS

Block On Obama's Divestment Bill From Sen. Shelby; "He Is Suspected Of Holding The Bill As A Favor For A Reluctant Administration." "The facts are quite simple: Barack Obama's bill against Iran is stuck in the Senate. Senator Richard Shelby is putting a hold on it. The explanation is more complicated, among other things because Shelby doesn't feel the need to explain his decision in detail. Supposedly, he is doing it for procedural reasons, but there's some suspicion among people familiar with the story that it's actually a favor he is doing to the Bush administration - which doesn't want the bill to pass. Bottom line, there's no bill for now. But the Obama people think the Senator isn't going to give up on it so easily. If Shelby wants to block the bill, let him explain it - or maybe shame him into it...He has a procedural claim concerning the bill. Since it deals with a monetary issue, he says, it needs to go through the banking committee of which he is a member...Truth is, that nobody really believes Shelby when he says it is all because of the banking committee. He is suspected of holding the bill as a favor for a reluctant administration." [Haaretz blog, 8/28/07]

Bush Administration Said it Opposed Divestment Bill Because They Said It "Could Jeopardize The Support Of Our Allies For Multilateral Actions Against The Regimes In These Countries." "The Bush administration has notified Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois that it ‘can't support' the bills intended to help states and funds divest from Iran and Sudan, Haaretz learned on Tuesday. In a letter sent to Durbin within the past four weeks, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department Kevin Fromer explains the reservations the administration has regarding these bills, among them, the fear that such legislation ‘could jeopardize the support of our allies for multilateral actions against the regimes in these countries.'...In the letter from the Treasury Department, the administration explains its resistance to several divestment bills. ‘The Treasury Department shares Congress' concerns about the actions of state sponsors of terrorism,' it says, ‘and agrees that economic pressure is a component of any comprehensive strategy to alter the behavior of these regimes." However, it says, ‘Imposing meaningful financial pressure requires the cooperation and joint actions of other countries.' In the case of Iran, claims the administration, pressure is mounting precisely because the United States is not acting alone. Fromer, assistant secretary for legislative affairs, claims that ‘requiring the U.S. government to produce a list targeting the lawful conduct of companies based in allied nations is unhelpful to our multilateral approach.' He advises the Senate to pursue other means, like improving ‘the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure requirements.'" [Haaretz, 8/29/07]

OBAMA HAS SAID THAT HE WOULD REMOVE TROOPS ACCORDING TO THE SITUATION AND COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND

Obama: "I Will Always listen to Our Commanders on the Ground." "I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there." [Debate, 4/16/08]

Obama: "If The Commanders Tell Me They Need X, Y And Z, In Order To Accomplish The Very Narrow Mission That I've Laid Out, Than I Will Take That Into Consideration." Obama said, "You raise a series of legitimate questions. As commander in chief, I'm not going to leave trainers unprotected. In our counterterrorism efforts, I'm not going to have a situation where our efforts can't be successful. We will structure those forces so they can be successful. We would still have human intelligence capabilities on the ground. Some of them would be civilian, as opposed to military, some would be operating out of our bases as well as our signal intelligence...But listen, I am not going to set up our troops for failure and I'm going to do something half-baked. If the commanders tell me that they need X, Y and Z, in order to accomplish the very narrow mission that I've laid out, than I will take that into consideration." [New York Times, 11/1/07]

Obama Said U.S. Has To Make Sure "We Are Not Just Willy-Nilly Removing Troops" And That It May "Take A Little Bit Longer" In Some Areas Where There Is Less Stability. "According to all the reports, we should have been well along our way in getting the Iraqi security forces to be more functional. We then have another 16 months after that to adjust the withdrawal and make sure that we are withdrawing from those areas, based on advice from the military officers in the field, those places where we are secured, made progress and we're not just willy-nilly removing troops, but we're making a determination – in this region we see some stability. We've had cooperation from local tribal leaders and local officials, so we can afford to remove troops here. Here, we've still got problems, it's going to take a little bit longer. Maybe those are the last areas to pull out." [New York Times, 11/1/07]

Obama: "Even Something As Simple As Protecting Our Embassy Is Going To Dependent On What Is The Security In Baghdad...If There Is Some Sense Of Security, Then That Means One Level Of Force. If You Continue To Have Significant Sectarian Conflict, That Means Another." "I have not ascribed particular numbers to that and I won't for precisely the reason I was just talking to Michael about. I want to talk to military folks on the ground, No. 1. No. 2, a lot of it depends on what's happened on the political front and the diplomatic front. Even something as simple as protecting our embassy is going to be dependent on what is the security environment in Baghdad. If there is some sense of security, then that means one level of force. If you continue to have significant sectarian conflict, that means another, but this is an area where Senator Clinton and I do have a significant contrast." [New York Times, 11/1/07]

Obama Said He Believed "That We Should Have All Our Troops Out By 2013, But I Don't Want To Make Promises." Obama said, "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office -- which it appears there may be, unless we can get of our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable -- if there's no timetable -- then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians, and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises, not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out." [NH DNC Debate, 9/26/07]

Obama Said He Would Leave Residual Troops In Iraq Based On The Levels Of Violence, "It's Not My Job To Specify Troop Levels." Obama said, "If we see a serious effort by the Iraqi leadership to arrive at an agreement and an accommodation and you've seen continued reductions of violence, then you need one level of troop protection for the embassy...If things have gone to hell in a hand basket then you need another ... It's not my job to specify troop levels. My job is to tell our commanders on the ground, ‘Here's your mission. Protect our embassy, protect our diplomats and our humanitarian workers in the area and make sure al Qaeda in Iraq, or other terrorist organizations inside of Iraq are not re-establishing bases there." [Fosters, 11/28/07]