Another "AIPAC & IRAN" retrospective...

[felixth...@hotmail.com]

AIPAC = the fly in the ointment of Iran-US relations!!! Read all about
it in this blast from the past-

6/18/96 WSJ A24

The Wall Street Journal
Copyright (c) 1996, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Tuesday, June 18, 1996

Politics & Policy

Progress of Iran-Sanctions Measure in Congress Signals Comeback for
Pro-Israel Lobbying Group By Robert S. Greenberger and Laurie Lande Staff
Reporters of The Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON -- When House Ways and Means staffers began hard bargaining
recently over a bill aimed at penalizing foreign firms doing business
with Iran, one outside group sat at the table --Aipac, the pro-Israel
lobby.

The group's presence was fitting. Aipac had helped shape a similar bill
to combat Iranian-backed terrorism and guide it to unanimous Senate
passage last December. To raise the issue's profile, it orchestrated
threats against foreign companies considering commercial ventures with
Tehran and even set up an Internet site loaded with information about
Iran.

The measure, which the House is expected to approve today with the
Clinton administration's blessing, infuriates some of the U.S.'s closest
European allies. Last week in an undiplomatic outburst, the European
Union's top executive turned to President Clinton during a joint news
conference to complain that it wasn't "justifiable or effective for one
country to impose its tactics on another."

But for AIPAC, known formally as the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, the measure isn't just a way to fight international terrorism.
It offers the chance for a comeback of sorts, a badly needed way to
burnish its own image. AIPAC isn't a political-action committee; it is
the chief U.S. lobbying group for Israel and is financed by private
fund-raising in this country.

AIPAC staffers insist that it is business as usual -- they are working
on Capitol Hill to promote Israel's interests. But the group's interest
in Iranian terrorism at least partly reflects a recent dilemma. Over the
past few years, Israel's active pursuit of peace with its Arab neighbors
and warm ties with Washington madeAipac's mission less clear. The group
no longer needed to mobilize its troops to thwart U.S. arms sales to Arab
states or vilify Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Instead, American Jews
were divided over issues such as the future of Jerusalem and the prospect
of a Palestinian state.

"The consensus surrounding Israel has diminished and this, among other
things, has reduced somewhat the centrality of Aipac in the American
Jewish community," says Benjamin Ginsberg, a Johns Hopkins University
professor who writes on American-Jewish politics.

Aipac's funk began in 1992 when Israeli voters elected the Labor
Party's Yitzhak Rabin as prime minister, ending 15 years of dominance by
the hard-line Likud bloc. On a visit here, Mr. Rabin met privately with
Aipac's top leaders, many of whom are conservative and cozy with Likud.
The new prime minister read them the riot act, gruffly telling Aipac
officials that he would conduct foreign policy directly with the White
House and that they should stay out of the way.

Shocked and searching for a way to remain relevant, Aipac hit upon the
perfect vehicle -- Sen. Alfonse D'Amato. Since 1993, the New York
Republican had been offering sweeping Iran sanctions bills. Despite the
general animosity toward Tehran, the bills languished in Congress. Aipac
recognized that all that was needed was an organized effort to refine the
legislation and push it through. The lobbying group decided to become the
locomotive.

When the Republicans took over Congress in early 1995 and Sen. D'Amato
became chairman of the Banking Committee, the bill's fortunes -- and
Aipac's -- were about to change. The administration regularly attacked
Iran's support of international terrorism and urged its allies not to do
business with Tehran. Then, thanks partly to an Aipac research paper
shared with the White House, the administration learned to its
embarrassment that U.S. oil companies were Iran's biggest customers by
far.

In March of last year, to show its resolve, the White House intervened
to stop Conoco Inc., the energy unit of DuPont Co., from going ahead with
plans to help develop two Iranian oil fields. But casting the spotlight
on Iran also gave Sen. D'Amato's bill momentum. Soon, the administration
was conducting separate discussions with the senator's office and with
Aipac.

Sen. D'Amato's bill focused on imposing U.S. penalties on foreign
companies for trading with Iran. (The bill also includes sanctions
against Libya, though Iran remains Aipac's principle focus.) But the
administration, believing such a sweeping bill would violate
international trade law, suggested another approach: it would punish
foreign companies that in the future invested at least $40 million in
Iran's energy sector, which is vital to its economy. The sanctions would
include barring U.S. Export-Import Bank support on sales to those foreign
companies and would ban such companies from receiving loans of more than
$10 million from a U.S. financial institution. The administration hoped
such an approach would be less offensive to America's allies. Aipac,
recognizing the broader appeal of such a measure, signed on. So did Sen.
D'Amato. The bill moved through the Senate with no opposition.

Next, Aipac prepared for a tougher fight in the House, where powerful
interests traditionally oppose so-called secondary boycotts. In a
world-wide campaign closely coordinated with Sen. D'Amato, Aipac and the
New York Republican helped raise the stakes by publicizing pending
business deals involving foreign firms and Iran.

In February of this year, for instance, the Australian Jewish Review
published an article saying that Broken Hill Proprietary Co., Australia's
largest company, was about to sign a $1 billion deal with Iran. A few
days later, the Australian Financial Review's Washington correspondent
wrote a similar report, including a letter to the firm by Sen. D'Amato.
The company, under pressure, denied that such a deal was pending.

Meanwhile, the House International Relations Committee approved a bill
that included certain trade sanctions and was tougher than Sen. D'Amato's
measure. But GOP Rep. Bill Archer of Texas, chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee that also has jurisdiction, strongly opposed trade
sanctions.

With the two House committees at loggerheads, Aipac played the key role
of go-between, sitting with Ways and Means staffers in the office of
Thelma Askey, staff director of the panel's trade subcommittee, to try to
resolve differences. In recent weeks, Aipac won support for a measure
favored by the International Relations Committee that could lower the
investment threshold to $20 million after a year if other nations don't
agree to join the U.S. effort against Iran. But Aipac failed in efforts
to extend sanctions to banks that finance energy deals in Iran. The
Senate is expected to accept the House's version of the final bill.

Ironically, the recent election victory of Israel's hard-line Likud
party, which is likely to stall peace talks, could create tensions
between the U.S. and Israel -- and re-energize Aipac'sbasic mission. "If
Clinton tries to put pressure on Israel," says Morris Amitay, a former
executive director of Aipac, "he'll find that Aipac will be working with
a lot of people in Congress, particularly the Republican majority, who
will be happy to take on the White House."

---
Dealing with Iran

Here are some possible sanctions under the House bill to penalize
foreign companies doing business with Iran:

-- Banning U.S. Export-Import Bank assistance on exports to sanctioned
foreign companies.

-- Refusing to issue licenses to export certain goods to sanctioned
foreign companies.

-- Barring U.S. government procurement from sanctioned foreign
companies.

---- INDEX REFERENCES ----

NEWS SUBJECT: Financing Agreements; International Economic News; Public-
Policy and Regulatory Issues; Petroleum Market; Trade Issues; Trade
Groups (FNC IEN PBP PET TRD TRG)

MARKET SECTOR: Energy (ENE)

INDUSTRY: Oil-Integrated Majors (OIL)

GOVERNMENT: Congress; Export-Import Bank; Executive; Governments of Non-
U.S. Countries (CNG EIB EXE IGV)

REGION: Africa; Iran; Israel; Libya; Middle East; North America; United
States (AF IR ISR LY ML NME US)

LAYOUT CODES: Large Majors; Politics & Policy (LMJ PTC)

Word Count: 1171

6/18/96 WSJ A24

END OF DOCUMENT
9/8/96 SCMTB FO6
9/8/96 Sacramento Bee FO6
1996 WL 3315311

The Sacramento Bee
Copyright 1996

Sunday, September 8, 1996

FORUM

IRAQ: IS IT U.S. POLICY OR LIKUD'S?
Robert Fisk
Robert Fisk is a writer for the Independent of London.

BEHIND LAST week's missile bombardments of Iraq lies one of the oddest
of all U.S. policies in the Middle East: "dual containment."

Proposed by the former head of the Middle East desk at the United
States National Security Council, Martin Indyk -- a name to remember
in current U.S. policy-making in the region -- the aim was to curb
the power of both Iraq and Iran.

Israel had long advanced the same thesis. Iraq and Iran -- so
Indyk told his masters -- were the opponents of "peace" in the
region; their influence must be countered by American economic,
political and military pressure.

And U.S. diplomats assiduously took this approach with the Gulf
States: The greatest danger to their stability, they told the kings
and emirs, came from Baghdad and Tehran.

BUT LAST week's missile assaults on Iraq seem to make America's
stated Middle East policy a little more difficult to understand.
Bombing the Iraqis who support the Kurds opposed to Iran -- the
Kurdish Democractic Party which invited Saddam Hussein's troops into
Arbil -- gives kudos to Jalal Talabani, whose alliance with Iran
seems to grow stronger by the hour.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has deplored the U.S. air strikes,
but its Kurdish allies have been the principal beneficiaries of this
American adventure. Many a glass of warm Pepsi must therefore have
been raised in Tehran in support of President Clinton's latest
adventure. Perhaps even to Martin Indyk.

Or did the Americans not realize they were involving themselves
in the Kurdish civil war?

Australian-born, Indyk is perhaps the most interesting figure in
this whole process. He is now U.S. ambassador to Israel but formerly
worked for AIPAC -- the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee --
which lies at the heart of the Jewish lobby in the United States.

A committed Zionist, Indyk co-founded the "Washington Institute
for Near East Policy," an AIPAC satellite, and has always allied
himself with the right-wing Israeli Likud party which won the Israeli
elections last May under Binyamin Netanyahu.

This, however, did not stop Clinton from appointing him
ambassador to Israel, where his latest advice to Yasser Arafat --
after the March suicide bombings that slaughtered dozens of Israelis
-- was "to use more stick and less carrot."

The American "stick" is now being used with ever greater
frequency against Iraq and Iran; last year, Clinton, wearing a Jewish
yamalka, told an audience at a New York meeting that he would impose
economic sanctions against Iran.

(My note: the "group" referred to was the World Jewish Congress, headed
by one Edgar Bronfman, who lobbied the president to force Conoco Oil to
drop a $1 billion contract awarded to it by Iran as a gesture of
goodwill.)

Now the sword is pointing at Iraq. The Israelis are happy --
providing, of course, the repulsive Saddam Hussein does not fire
missiles at them. And Indyk must be satisfied.

What chance, the Iranians must be wondering, that the "stick" is
next used against them?

The Independent of London

CAPTION:

Associated Press
U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk after meeting with Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Tuesday.

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH IN THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE

1 Photo

---- INDEX REFERENCES ----

EDITION: METRO FINAL

Word Count: 479
9/8/96 SCMTB FO6
END OF DOCUMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------

6/22/95 GRDN 014
6/22/95 Guardian (London) 014
1995 WL 7609357

The Guardian
Copyright 1995

Thursday, June 22, 1995

The Guardian Foreign Page

Clinton learns price of friendship
DAVID HIRST IN BEIRUT

ONE rubbed one's eyes in disbelief, but there it was in the
Damascus daily al-Ba'ath, a eulogy of President Clinton, "who,
whenever Israel impedes the peace process, steps in to put it back
on track, unlike before, when Washington used to give Israel its
unconditional support".

It came after secretary of state Warren Christopher's thirteenth
- yes, thirteenth - Middle East tour since taking office, and the
little wave of optimism that generated about progress in the
Israeli-Syrian peace talks.

It was all the more remarkable in that Syria is the last great
hold-out against Pax Americana and, for Arabs everywhere, no
American president has seemed so opportunistically pro-Israeli as
this one.

If the US has paid no serious price for its unprecedented
partisanship, that is because Arab regimes have never been so
dependent on it, and Arab publics - Islamist activism
notwithstanding - so powerless to influence them.

Palestine, as ever, lies at the heart of worsening Arab
frustrations. The Bahrain newspaper al-Ayyam wrote recently that,
from Eisenhower to Bush, there had been clashes between the US and
Israel. Even the arch-conservative Ronald Reagan was less biased
towards it than Mr Clinton.

Take Egypt, the first state to make peace with Israel. According
to Hassan Nafi'a, a political scientist writing in al-Ahram, it is
impossible not to have noted a "sea-change" in the "elite's"
attitude to the US.

For 25 years, he said, Egypt had counted on two things: the US
would achieve Middle East peace and direct dealings with Israel
would remove the psychological barriers which stood in peace's path.

Egypt now grasped that the peace on offer failed to address
Egypt's "minimal national interests" in the vital fields of
security and religious sentiment.

Jordan, the second to make peace, is undergoing a faster process
of disillusionment, with the US's back-tracking on promises of loan
forgiveness, and its position on Jerusalem, a subject of special
concern to King Hussein.

Iran is now the most pressing issue. There is growing unease in
the Gulf about the suffering which the US's relentless
"containment" of President Saddam Hussein inflicts on the Iraqi
people. Yet here it comes, requiring everyone - Gulf states
included - to do the same against Iran.

Like other Arabs, they regard that as a mere cover for the US's
real motive, which is to appease the Zionist lobby and Congress.
They also believe it increases, not reduces, the danger to
themselves. In fact, concludes the Saudi-owned al-Hayat, the "dual
containment" of Iran and Iraq is a misnomer for the "general
containment" of the whole Arab world.

Word Count: 429
6/22/95 GRDN 014
END OF DOCUMENT

------------------------------------------------------------------
12/15/95 ENWJBNC 4
12/15/95 Jewish Bull. N. Cal. 4
1995 WL 15388191

Northern California Jewish Bulletin
Copyright 1995 SoftLine Information, Inc.

Friday, December 15, 1995

V.144; N.49

Boxer, AIPAC lead efforts to cut off Iranian exports
Natalie Weinstein
Jewish; English

Boxer, AIPAC lead efforts to cut off Iranian exports.

NATALIE WEINSTEIN

Bulletin Staff

Calling Iran a "sponsor of evil deeds," Sen. Barbara Boxer said this
week she is backing a bill to sanction foreign companies that invest in
the Mideast nation.

"If you do business with Iran, you won't do business with America,"
said the Jewish Democrat from Greenbrae.

Boxer spoke Monday to an audience of 700 at an American Israel Public
Affairs Committee membership-drive luncheon at San Francisco's Fairmont
Hotel. This event and two others in San Jose and Oakland were dedicated
to Israel's late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

During speeches and interviews, Boxer and AIPAC national president
Steve Grossman reaffirmed their support for the current peace process
and outlined ways to minimize Israel's risks in this endeavor -- though
neither would express an opinion on the possibility of stationing U.S.
troops in the Golan Heights as part of a Syrian-Israeli peace agreement.

At the top of AIPAC's 1996 agenda, Grossman said, is legislation to
boost Israel's military technology and to put the squeeze on Iran.

"If you think about the strategic threat to Israel long-term,"
Grossman said, "it's the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
and...the spread of Islamic fundamentalism."

Iran excels in both areas, he said.

In recent weeks, Boxer has taken a leading role in helping work out
differences between Congress and the administration on the Iran bill.
Earlier this week, the bill was still in the Senate's banking committee,
on which Boxer serves.

Though the federal government banned U.S. trade and investment with
Iran this spring, foreign corporations with U.S. subsidiaries continue
to purchase oil from Iran. By trying to cut off a major source of Iran's
income, Boxer said, the United States can dry up financing for
Iranian-backed fundamentalist terrorists.

When an oil deal between Conoco and Iran was scrapped earlier this
year under pressure from the federal government and Israel supporters,
Grossman said, a French corporation with 19 subsidiaries in the United
States took Conoco's place. In November, he added, officials of more
than 100 foreign companies traveled to Teheran to bid on projects worth
$7 billion.

In addition to the Iran bill, Grossman said, AIPAC will focus next
year on the possible expansion of military technology and sophisticated
weaponry that the United States shares with or sells to Israel. Though
Israel is considered a major ally, Grossman said, it doesn't rank as
high as NATO countries when it comes to sharing defense information,
such as infrared software.

A new relationship between the United States and Israel could take the
form of a defense treaty, an upgraded "memorandum of understanding" or
provisions within the annual foreign aid bill.

This potential shift becomes even more important, he added, as Israel
relinquishes control of parts of the West Bank -- and potentially the
Golan Heights and its security zone in southern Lebanon.

Such a move would drive home to Arab nations the fact that they cannot
create a wedge between the United States and Israel, Grossman said. It
would also help increase Israelis' confidence in any possible peace
agreement with Syria.

Despite Prime Minister Shimon Peres' renewed interest in a
Syrian-Israeli peace, neither Boxer nor Grossman would say whether they
would back sending U.S. troops to the Golan as part of a peace
agreement. "It's premature for AIPAC to take a position," Grossman said.

AIPAC continues to ask Congressmembers not to take a final public
stand yet on this issue. That's because the details of any such peace
agreement remain entirely unclear, Grossman said. Still unknown is
whether Syria would agree to ground-based early warning stations,
refrain from stationing troops on the border and constrain drug
trafficking and terrorist activities.

Boxer agreed, saying any discussion of such a divisive issue is
unnecessary for now. "No one's even asking for troops."

Though she wouldn't spell out her position on this issue, Boxer told
the audience she has decided to support sending U.S. troops to Bosnia as
part of an international operation to enforce the peace agreement and
stop the atrocities. Since the Holocaust, she said, Jews have promised
that such a tragedy would never happen again to anyone. "I think we can
do something to prevent a genocide," she said.

Though some Bay Area Jews have said Boxer's voting record on Israel
shows less than consistent support, Grossman considers her a steadfast
ally.

In addition to her recent work on the Iran bill, Grossman pointed to
Boxer's immediate commitment earlier this year to legislation moving the
U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel's capital.

"In the last year, we've gone to her for help, and she's been not only
willing to be involved, but she's taken an early leadership role," he
said. "She's been a terrific partner in the past year."

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH IN THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE

Photo (Steve Grossman)

---- INDEX REFERENCES ----

NAMED PERSON: BARBARA BOXER AND STEVE GROSSMAN

KEY WORDS: BUSINESS (STRATEGY, INTERNATIONAL); INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
(ECONOMIC RELATIONS); POLITICS (ISSUES, INTERNATIONAL)

NEWS SUBJECT: Trade Issues (TRD)

NEWS CATEGORY: BUSINESS

Word Count: 796
12/15/95 ENWJBNC 4
END OF DOCUMENT
__________________________________________________________________
1/28/97 WATIMES A1
1/28/97 Wash. Times (D.C.) A1
1997 WL 3662299

The Washington Times
Copyright 1997

Tuesday, January 28, 1997

A

U.S. decides to continue Iran-Iraq 'containment' Albright policy
unenforceable, critics say
Martin Sieff
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

After flirting with the idea of opening a political dialogue
with Iran, the Clinton administration has retreated to its old
policy of "dual containment" against both the Islamic republic and
neighboring Iraq.

New Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright reiterated her
support for continuing current policies to contain Iran and Iraq on
NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday.

"Our policy on Iran and Iraq is one that we will pursue because
we are very concerned about their support of terrorism and what
they do in terms of destabilizing the region," she said.

But some U.S. experts who have urged the reopening of
diplomatic relations with Tehran are concerned the policy will
prove unenforceable as Iran continues to receive vast military and
nuclear supplies from Russia and China. Meanwhile, Western
European powers seek lucrative high-tech trade with both countries.

Also, many of the small Arab oil-producing states in the
Persian Gulf are privately urging such a dialogue to ease tensions
in the region and - they hope - avert the threat of driving Iran
into the arms of Russia and even of its traditional enemy Iraq.

Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov, the architect of
Soviet anti-Western Middle East policies in the 1960s and 1970s,
has quietly made an Iran-Iraq rapprochement a top Russian priority
in the region.

"He sees that dependence on Persian Gulf oil is America's soft
underbelly, and he's determined to strike at it," one Middle East
intelligence source said. "The continuation of 'dual containment'
plays into his hands."

Many U.S. experts are increasingly skeptical that Washington
can maintain a credible hostile posture against both Iran and Iraq
for much longer.

"It is unlikely we can manage 'dual containment' for another
four years," said Dov Zakheim, a deputy undersecretary of defense
in the Reagan administration now chairman of SPC International, a
consulting firm.

"We have been very lucky for the last four years, but to
sustain the level of international support needed against Iran and
Iraq for another four is wishful thinking," Mr. Zakheim said.

But the U.S. government is still "going to make every effort
to deny Iran and Iraq weapons of mass destruction, long-range
missile delivery systems and any conventional military arms
buildup," said Anthony Cordesman, co-director of Middle East
studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"It is almost inconceivable that any of this will change. The
U.S. government is not going to break away from 'dual containment,'
" said Mr. Cordesman, author of "The Iran-Iraq War" and other
studies of military power in the region.

An Israeli official told Reuters news agency yesterday that
Iran had sent 30 jetloads of weapons to fully rearm the Shi'ite
Hezbollah (Party of God) militia in Lebanon after Israel's 17-day
offensive against it in April.

Also, evidence appears to be mounting that Iran may have been
behind the June bombing of a barracks housing U.S. Air Force
personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 American
servicemen.

Robert Pelletreau, assistant secretary of state for Near East
affairs, called for a U.S.-Iran dialogue in October while visiting
the United Arab Emirates.

"We are open to dialogue with the government of Iran," he said.
"Nobody thinks this is a perfect situation."

Top Iranian officials replied by saying that if the United
States had a message to send to Iran, "it would not go unanswered."

But Mrs. Albright is expected to drop Mr. Pelletreau and
replace him with Martin Indyk, now ambassador to Israel, who
crafted the "dual containment" policy at the National Security
Council.

Aaron David Miller, the longtime right-hand man of Middle East
envoy Dennis Ross, a close friend and policy ally of Mr. Indyk, is
expected to inherit Mr. Indyk's old slot on the NSC.

These moves would give Mr. Indyk and his allies "a
stranglehold on Middle East policy-making," one administration
source said. And "there is no indication Martin [Indyk] has
reconsidered his views" on Iraq and Iran, he added.

"There is going to be no dialogue between the United States and
Iran, at the very least until the July 1997 [presidential]
elections" in Iran, said Geoffrey Kemp, director of strategic
studies at the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom. He has
organized a group of 30 scholars to study alternate U.S. policies
on Iran.

President Clinton did not want to open a dialogue with Tehran
at this point because "the Iranian government is still engaged in
[supporting] terrorism, in developing its own weapons of mass
destruction and in opposing the Arab-Israeli peace process," Mr.
Kemp said.

With criticism of U.S. policies against Iran building in
Europe, however, "my concern is that we are headed for a very
unpleasant business [clash] with Europe if we do not show some
flexibility" over imposing economic sanctions on Iran, Mr. Kemp
said.

Also, "any dialogue with Iran is fraught with political risks
for any U.S. government," an administration source said. "In the
short term, it appears wiser and safer not to run such risks."

But Mr. Cordesman warned the Senate Armed Services Committee
on Sept. 18 that failure to reconcile long-standing conflicts with
Iran and Iraq carry greater risks in the long term.

"We need to recognize that we are trapped into a continuing
process of challenge and response for which there is no good or
easy endgame," Mr. Cordesman said. ". . . I can absolutely promise
you that more Americans are going to die in this region.

---- INDEX REFERENCES ----

EDITION: 2

Word Count: 899 1/28/97 WATIMES A1 END OF DOCUMENT
_________________________________________________________________________
__

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet