Sen. Bayh Speaks on Iran - washingtonpost.com

'); } //-->

Sen. Bayh Speaks on Iran

CQ Transcriptions
Thursday, January 19, 2006; 5:27 PM

SPEAKER: U.S. SENATOR EVAN BAYH (D-IN)

[*]

BAYH: Hello.

QUESTION: Senator, how are you?

BAYH: I'm well. How are you?

Thank you for joining me today. Let me get right to the subject that has brought us together.

Immediately upon the Senate reconvening, I am going to introduce a resolution calling upon the administration to immediately go to the United Nations and seek strong, comprehensive sanctions against the nation of Iran.

I do this because Iran presents a grave and growing danger, not only to the United States' security interests, but also to order in the world.

And time is running out. It may be measured in months before Iran has the technical capability -- not actually production, but the technical know-how -- which will lead it down the path to becoming a nuclear power.

And that is unacceptable.

We have to take strong action today to maximize our chances of avoiding two unpalatable alternatives tomorrow: either Iran becoming a nuclear power or the need for us to take military action to prevent that result.

It's most unfortunate that we are where we are today and, if action had been take four or five years ago, we perhaps wouldn't be at this juncture.

The president was right to label Iran part of the axis of evil, but then did nothing about it.

We would have been in so much stronger position if we had acted before oil was more than $60 a barrel, before our financial dependence on China is what it is today, when there was a less unstable regime -- or a less erratic regime in Iran, and when Russia was not quite as alienated from us as it is today.

That was a terrible lost opportunity. But we are where we are.

So my resolution will call for economic and political sanctions, including suspending the delivery of gasoline to the nation of Iran. They get about 40 percent of their gasoline through imports. That needs to be cut off. Travel bans to and from Iran. The suspension of financial transactions with the nation of Iran. Stopping arms sales to the nation of Iran. The United States opposing their accession to the World Trade Organization. And their exclusion from sports and cultural events like the Olympics and the upcoming World Cup games.

In short, Iran needs to know that their continued pursuit of what I believe are nuclear weapons will lead them to be treated as a pariah state.

And I think if we combine this approach with a positive alternative for them that has been suggested, that it gives us our best chance of avoiding the dilemma that I described before of either a nuclear-powered Iran or the need for us to take military action to prevent it.

Final thing I'd say -- I recently came back from a week in the Middle East. In Israel, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, each of those countries, the malevolent influence of Iran was mentioned.

I won't recount for you here the long list of things that they've said and done, but let me just say that they are a danger to us, they are a danger to the rest of the world. We need to act before it's too late.

And so if the Senate comes in tomorrow, I'm introducing it tomorrow. If not, then I'm going to introduce it as soon as the Senate does reconvene, because we've wasted too much time already. We can't afford to waste any more.

Having said all that, I'd be happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Senator, there was an essay by a woman who is Syrian and Lebanese saying that Syrian people who were opposing the dictatorship and looking for reform have rallied behind their leader because they fear sanctions are going to come on Syria.

QUESTION: Is there any unintended consequence by taking a hard line against Iran that it will stall reform there among the populace?

BAYH: Well, we face a short- and a long-term challenge there.

Number one, in the short run -- look, I think we need to make absolutely clear that this is aimed at the policies of the Iranian government, not at the Iranian people.

And I think most Iranians are sophisticated enough to understand that. But even if they don't, allowing Iran to achieve nuclear weapons is just not an acceptable outcome.

So, in the long run, we need to foster reform and economic progress in that country, but not at the price of letting them go nuclear.

QUESTION: Senator...

BAYH: But in the long run, it is true that their government is not terribly popular with their own people. And we need to do everything we can to differentiate between their government and their people.

As a matter of fact, we need to make common cause with the Iranian people and say: Look, none of this has to happen if you will only agree to not acquire nuclear weapons. That is a decision your government is making, not ours.

QUESTION: Senator, you've mentioned the stick. What is the carrot? What are the positive alternatives you're talking about?

BAYH: Well, I mentioned accession to the WTO. That's one thing. The Russians have put on the table a proposal that's supported by the European nations that would allow a civilian nuclear energy program where the Russians would retain custody of the nuclear material and would reprocess it in Russia.

And that's what I'm talking about, so that they could have -- look, the reason that their behavior is -- well, many reasons their behavior is alarming -- but one of the reasons for that is that they've been offered a path to peaceful, responsible civilian nuclear power. They've turned that down.

QUESTION: Senator, Iranian dissidents in this country and in Europe say that it's a false dichotomy to talk about either negotiations, which they say will go nowhere, or foreign military intervention, which they say they don't want.

And they say the only practical solution is to take the mujahideen there -- the military wing of their dissident movement within Iran -- off the U.S. State Department terrorist list, unfreeze the assets that we froze and let them rearm and let the Iranian people take care of this.

BAYH: I'm sorry. Did I understand their point as being that we should unfreeze their assets -- go down the list again. They're suggesting that we should do what?

QUESTION: Under Clinton, the State Department put the democratic dissident movement with Iran, which has a political and a military wing -- we put their military wing on the terrorist list, list of terrorist organizations. We froze their assets and they disarmed.

BAYH: The dissidents?

QUESTION: Right.

BAYH: OK. I wanted to make sure you weren't talking about the government. You're talking about the dissidents now.

QUESTION: Yes. And what they're saying is negotiations will go nowhere. We don't want foreign military intervention. What we want is for the Iranian people to revolt against the regime. And the only way they can do that, they say -- well, one first step is for the U.S. government to take their military wing of the dissident movement, which is on the Iraq-Iranian border now, off the terrorist list and let them rearm and unfreeze their assets...

BAYH: Right. I see. I understand where you're coming from.

I'm not prepared to answer your question right now. I need to familiarize myself with the reasons the Clinton administration made their decision.

But when it comes to fostering and assisting groups that are for democracy, for reform, for a more responsible leadership in Iran, we should be supportive of that.

With regard to the specific groups you mentioned, I, again, would have to understand why they made the decision they made. My initial reaction is it sounds somewhat counterintuitive. But, again, I need to know why they did what they did.

QUESTION: Senator, could you just go back a little bit and explain why you think that the Iranians are close to having a nuclear weapon, if I understood you correctly?

BAYH: The bottom line is no one can say with precision when Iran will go nuclear. Published reports speculate that it could be anywhere from months to several years. But if we wait until after the fact, it's too late.

And so, as I mentioned, if we had started this process years ago, when it should have been started, we wouldn't, perhaps, be at this juncture today. But we are, and so now we need to bring a sense of urgency to it.

So there is one school of thought that is reflected in some published reports that they are months away from obtaining the technical know-how -- not the production capability, but the technical know-how -- to go forward with this. And then it's only a matter of how many centrifuges they can acquire and getting it done. They'll know how to do it, it's just a question of then going ahead and getting it done.

But once they know how to do it, the genie is out of the bottle and it's virtually impossible to put back in.

So my point simply is that there is some responsible speculation about months.

BAYH: It may be, you know, a couple of years; we don't know.

But when it comes to a state that sponsors terrorism obtaining nuclear weapons, it seems to me you need to err on the side of acting sooner rather than later.

QUESTION: One follow-up question: What do you think the Bush administration should have done following the axis of evil declaration?

BAYH: Exactly what we're talking about here today -- to try and summon the Europeans, including the Russians, and in addition the Chinese, to taking concrete steps.

The regime of Iran -- getting back to, I think it was Phil's question. I agree with the statement that he attributed to their dissident movements. I think that this regime is unlikely to respond to talk alone.

I think they have to be confronted with tangible results, both negative and positive, before they will respond. Merely denouncing them in a speech and then doing nothing tangible in furtherance is just weak and ineffectual.

QUESTION: And they're responsible?

BAYH: Well, I think, as I said, we would have been in a lot better position when oil wasn't at $60 a barrel to summon world opinion to do something about Iran.

We would be in a much better position to talk frankly with China if we weren't dependent upon them for borrowing billions of dollars every year because of our trade imbalance.

Russia has become somewhat alienated from us in the last four or five years.

There are a number of things that have happened that have made it more difficult for us than would have been the case.

Now, this new regime and the erratic statements of its president, that has perhaps removed the scales from the eyes of some nations -- but it's their willingness to do something about it that ultimately is at issue here.

And the fact that our government has waited so long to do something about it has only made the challenge more difficult.

This is a threat that was apparent. The president said so, then did nothing about it -- and that has harmed our national security.

QUESTION: Senator, may I ask a question just about timing?

BAYH: Yes.

QUESTION: The negotiations may be in their final stages, but there still is activity at the IAEA, the U.N. Security Council possibly.

Would you like to see this resolution pass before all of that, what may be the last act here plays itself out? Or do you want to wait until -- I mean, when can you get this to the floor? And would the Senate leadership be amenable to you bringing it to the floor right away, or would they want to wait until this phase is carried out?

BAYH: Well, that's a good question and let me start with the last first. I don't know if -- do you follow these issues substantively or do you follow the Senate?

QUESTION: I'm more of an Iran...

BAYH: Yes. OK, good.

The reason I ask is I didn't know what your beat was, and the reason that's important is that the Senate's all tied up now over the Alito nomination. And whether the Senate leadership will allow any other matters to be brought to the floor of the Senate, until the Alito nomination is resolved, is very much an open question.

So I don't know the answer to that part of your question.

QUESTION: What would be your preference?

BAYH: Immediately.

We need to put some -- I think we need to make clear -- I think we can strengthen the administration's hand by showing the government of Iran that on a bipartisan basis the United States is going to be strong and serious about this issue, and hopefully that will improve our bargaining position.

BAYH: Because I think what the Iranians have concluded is that they can just engage in a process of delay and denial and that eventually they will emerge as a nuclear power and will be presented with a fait accompli.

BAYH: So we need to send a strong signal on a bipartisan basis that those days are over.

And so I'd like to see it immediately. And I apologize for having to digress into the minutia of Senate scheduling, but that's kind of where we are.

And we need to go to the Security Council immediately and begin trying to secure the support of Russia and China for these kind of strong, tangible steps.

I don't think words alone will matter at all.

QUESTION: Senator, are any of these things unilateral sanctions that you're proposing? Or are they all through the Security Council?

BAYH: Well, a couple of things. First, the WTO are agreeing to their accession. That's something that we can do.

But we've tried most of the unilateral things we can do. There are a couple of other things. But our problem has been that the rest of the world has been reluctant to go along -- and because we haven't made this a major priority and spent the diplomatic and other capital at our disposal to bring it about.

So a lot of this involves exerting leadership on the world stage to achieve concerted action when it comes to the threat of Iran.

QUESTION: But nothing you're proposing is unilateral?

BAYH: The WTO...

QUESTION: Except for that.

BAYH: That would be largely it.

QUESTION: OK.

BAYH: I think, Todd, there are a couple of other things -- is Todd on the phone?

QUESTION: Yes I am, sir. There's a few things about tightening up the ILSA, the Iran Libya Sanctions Act laws, to make enforcement.

BAYH: Some of that has just not been enforced. Is that a fair statement, Todd?

QUESTION: Yes. There's only been three determinations and no sanctions have been imposed under ILSA.

QUESTION: So these sanctions would have to be imposed through the United Nations is what you're saying?

BAYH: No, that's an American law. And what Todd was referring to, that was enacted many years ago.

QUESTION: But that expires this year.

BAYH: Correct, but it's been largely unenforced. Even if it's renewed, given the way it's been enforced in the past, it would be largely symbolic.

You know, we need to uphold our own law, prove to the rest of the world we're serious, and enlist their support in also getting serious.

QUESTION: So you agree with the idea that unilateral sanctions are not necessarily the most effective way to go -- I'm not talking about just Iran, but in general?

BAYH: If we're going to be effective, we have to enlist the support of the rest of the world.

QUESTION: Senator...

BAYH: Hi. Sorry I didn't get to talk to you at lunch.

QUESTION: Yes, sorry.

The Iran's economy...

BAYH: Did Senator Schumer tell you we're going to pick up a majority?

QUESTION: And change.

BAYH: Oh, good.

QUESTION: The economic minister...

BAYH: Chuck is always so understated.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Yes, well -- the economic minister in Iran earlier this week said that any sanctions would produce a response from them that would send oil prices to beyond levels the West expects.

QUESTION: To what extent do you think the fear of an oil disruption puts the U.S. or other nations in a diminished position to put pressure on Iran?

BAYH: A couple of things: Look, of course it's something that other nations will consider. And this brings into stark focus how our national security and the world's security has been damaged by the lack of an energy policy.

We would be so much stronger in dealing with Iran if other countries weren't as dependent on them for petroleum as they are today. We'd been so much stronger in dealing with Iran if we weren't as dependent upon China for financing as we are today.

So, this is a perfect example of how we have to have a comprehensive national security policy that includes not only our military but economic and energy policy as well.

And we just haven't had that. And that undermines the position that we hold today.

So, yes, other countries will have to consider that. But I'd say two things in addition all the foregoing. Number one, you've got to remember: Oil exports are about the only thing the Iranian economy can rely on. And the regime is not popular with its own people.

One of the reasons it's been able to prop itself up is because of the additional oil revenue that they're getting, that they can kind of spread around the society to make a go of things.

So, if they cut off their only source of economic activity, it's going to have devastating consequences on them, too. That's number one.

Number two, our nation and the rest of the world -- Iran has to decide whether we're going to submit to blackmail. Today, it may be oil-based blackmail.

But if we knuckle under to that, tomorrow it could be nuclear weapons-based blackmail. And that is a place we simply cannot allow ourselves to go.

QUESTION: You mentioned that these sanctions aren't targeted at the people. But that last one, keeping the Iranian teams out of the Olympics and out of the World Cup, especially banning their soccer team from the World Cup -- isn't that precisely what Europe and the U.S. have been trying to avoid is a sanction like that one because it does truly go right to the heart of national pride of each Iranian?

BAYH: Let me be clear. Nobody wants to do this, me included.

BAYH: But we have to look for things that will matter to the regime.

They are a proud country. And they're not completely insensitive to the sentiments of their people. And if we make it clear that we are serious and they will be treated as a pariah state, then I think that that maximizes our chances of getting a responsible outcome to this.

Nobody wants to do that -- the World Cup and the Olympics. But if that's what it takes to maximize our chances of avoiding either a nuclear Iran or a military strike, well then these are things that we have to do.

So I hope it doesn't come to that.

The final thing I'd say to you: The resolution of this lies solely in the hands of the Iranian government. They have been offered a clear path to a peaceful civilian nuclear energy program. That's the path that they must choose, or there must be consequences -- because clearly they will be going down a path toward achieving a nuclear weapon's capability.

QUESTION: Can I quickly ask you about the military option? In your mind, is it something that is just so unacceptable as to not be in our arsenal at this point, or something that we always do have to consider, even if you find it unpalatable?

BAYH: Oh, I think it has to be in the arsenal. But we ought to use everything else in the arsenal before considering that because -- well, for a whole host of reasons we can talk about if you're interested in.

But to maximize our chances -- nobody wants to do that -- and to maximize our chances of not having to use the military option, we need to exhaust these other options and do it now.

QUESTION: One last question, how do you see the U.N.'s role in this? How important will the U.N. be, and will they go along with us if we ask them?

BAYH: Well, the U.N. has an opportunity here to step up and prove that it can be effective. And I hope they will. And that's why we need to take this to them immediately and then we'll see.

The U.N., historically, has been good about peacekeeping missions and humanitarian missions. They've not been as good with regard to strong measures to deal with rogue nations.

Now is their time to prove that they can fulfill their mission. And so we'll see.

Thank you all very much.

END .ETX