The House is expected to take up and pass “a bill imposing tough new sanctions on Iran before the holiday recess.” Americans for Peace Now’s Lara Friedman reports that the bill maybe also pass the Senate quickly:

Today, at around noon, Senate leadership hotlined the bill. Meaning that barring any objections, the bill will be brought to the floor and passed without debate, without amendment, and without a roll-call vote. This is called unanimous consent — a move reserved, generally, for bills that are clear and non-controversial. [...]

It remains to be seen if the entire Senate will agree that a bill that would impact virtually every aspect of US policy (and policy options) related to Iran — now and for the foreseeable future — is clear and non-controversial. One can hope that at least one senator will be brave and conscientious enough to refuse the U/C request — something known as putting a “hold” on the bill. Holds, it should be recalled, are anonymous (and generally remain that way).

Barring that, it looks very possible that IRPSA [Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act], in some form, could become law before the end of the year, popular wisdom, good intentions, and good US policy be damned.

The Iran sanctions legislation “targets foreign companies that sell gasoline or other refined petroleum products to Iran; firms that provide ships, shipping services, or insurance for this trade; those that finance or broker such activity; as well as those assisting Iran’s effort to increase its domestic refining capacity.” One thing worth noting is that no one in Washington — on the right or left — seriously argues it will actually work to change Iran’s behavior. But this may be of secondary concern to legislators looking for a cheap and easy way to appear “tough” on Iran.

What the IRPSA sanctions will do, however, as members of Iran’s pro-democracy movement have warned, is inflict pain on Iran’s people and provide the embattled Iranian regime with precisely the scapegoat they need at precisely the moment they need it.

As Carnegie analyst Karim Sadjadpour told the Middle East Bulletin, the Green movement has been “trying to recruit as many people as possible under the tent of the green movement, including disaffected clerics and Revolutionary Guardsmen.” It’s hard to see how “crippling” unilateral sanctions like those contained in IRPSA would enhance the Green movement’s recruitment efforts.

Americans for Peace Now’s Lara Friedman reports that an Iran sanctions bill looks likely to pass sooner rather than later:

Today, at around noon, Senate leadership hotlined the bill. Meaning that barring any objections, the bill will be brought to the floor and passed without debate, without amendment, and without a roll-call vote. This is called unanimous consent — a move reserved, generally, for bills that are clear and non-controversial. [...]

It remains to be seen if the entire Senate will agree that a bill that would impact virtually every aspect of US policy (and policy options) related to Iran — now and for the foreseeable future — is clear and non-controversial. One can hope that at least one senator will be brave and conscientious enough to refuse the U/C request — something known as putting a “hold” on the bill. Holds, it should be recalled, are anonymous (and generally remain that way).

Barring that, it looks very possible that IRPSA, in some form, could become law before the end of the year, popular wisdom, good intentions, and good US policy be damned.

One thing that might be worth pointing out here about IRPSA — which “targets foreign companies that sell gasoline or other refined petroleum products to Iran; firms that provide ships, shipping services, or insurance for this trade; those that finance or broker such activity; as well as those assisting Iran’s effort to increase its domestic refining capacity” — is that there’s no one in Washington, on the right or left, who seriously argues it will actually work to change Iran’s behavior. But this may be of secondary concern to legislators looking for a cheap and easy way to appear “tough” on Iran.

What the IRPSA sanctions will do, however, as members of Iran’s pro-democracy movement have warned, is inflict pain on Iran’s people and provide Iran’s embattled regime with precisely the scapegoat they need at precisely the moment they need it.

As Carnegie analyst Karim Sadjadpour told Middle East Bulletin, the Green Movement has been “trying to recruit as many people as possible under the tent of the green movement, including disaffected clerics and Revolutionary Guardsmen.”

Both the government and the opposition are in precarious positions. The regime hasn’t recouped its lost legitimacy, and will continue to lose supporters as the economic situation deteriorates. They increasingly resemble a military junta, and there is serious dissent among them; even folks close to Khamenei, like Larijani and Tehran mayor Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf, would like to get rid of Ahmadinejad.

As for the opposition, its leadership and brain trust remains either in prison, under house arrest or unable to freely operate. Though the scale and frequency of popular protests has subsided, the millions who took to the streets post-election have not been pacified or co-opted.

It’s hard to see how “crippling” unilateral sanctions like those contained in IRPSA would enhance the Green movement’s recruitment efforts.

I agree with those like Sadjadpour and Trita Parsi and Dokhi Fassihian of the National Iranian-American Council, and Abbas Milani who say that time is right for President Obama to make a more clear and forthright statement of solidarity with the Iranian people against human rights abuses. But the sanctions currently being considered by the U.S. Congress would do nothing to help that cause — as written, they would in fact be harmful.

The START follow-on treaty currently being negotiated in Geneva seeks to prudently cut US and Russian nuclear arsenals, which account for about 96 percent of all nuclear weapons in the world. Yet in the search for a foe to justify building new nukes, as well as maintain the possession of thousands of nuclear weapons, conservatives on the Hill have insisted that the Cold War either isn’t over – as was argued at the Heritage Foundation last week – or a new Cold War is on the way. Since the Russia fear-mongering flopped last week, the enemy du jour has now become China.

A group of House Republicans, led by John Boehner (R-OH), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Joe Wilson (R-SC), and Mike Pence (R-IN), have put forth a resolution attacking a new START follow-on treaty. Despite the fact that the House has no responsibility in ratifying a new START treaty (which is the exclusive role of the Senate), nevertheless the Cable reported, “Fifty-seven Republicans, including Minority Leader John Boehner, R-OH, have already cosponsored Ros-Lehtinen’s bill. State Department insiders see House Republicans as piling on by giving their Senate counterparts one more issue to make hay with, mixed with some good old-fashioned China bashing.” The House resolution reads:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the President, in negotiating any new bilateral strategic arms agreement with the Russian Federation, shall ensure the continued deterrence capability of the United States strategic arsenal and flexibility in the allocation of its components in the event that third countries may pursue the deployment of significant and technologically advanced nuclear strategic forces not covered by such a United States-Russian arms agreement.

In other words, this resolution argues that the US should be wary of signing onto a new START treaty because it may inhibit our ability to expand our nuclear arsenal to compete with China. This is way off base.

First, there is such a massive gap between the US and China that North Dakota could deter China. The idea we wouldn’t sign on to a new START treaty in order to “deter” China is absurd. The US has more than 9,000 total nuclear weapons, China has about 250 in total. The Cable also notes that:

The GOP’s own resolution actually states that China has about 40 nuclear-tipped missiles that could reach the continental United States today, and could only amass about 100 over the next 15 years. That’s well below the levels being discussed between the U.S. and Russia — between 500 and 1,100 deployed warheads each, not counting the non-deployed ones.

Second, China is not concerned with challenging the US in the nuclear arena, you see because nuclear weapons are so 1970s. There is a pretty wide consensus among level-headed experts that China is quite comfortable in its current nuclear posture. A report from the East-West Institute concludes:

Both Russia and the United States believed that keeping a large portion of their strategic forces on alert is essential to deterrence and strategic stability. China, on the other hand, is said to keep a portion of its missiles on low alert with the warheads separated… China thus seems to be willing to live with this seeming vulnerability even though it is not clear if the situation is likely to last… The most important reason [for this approach] may be political, as nuclear weapons are viewed as weapons of coercion and not use. The mere fact of possession creates parity and achieves almost all the deterrence China desires.

As for the claims that China is feverishly working to develop new nuclear warheads, Jeffrey Lewis writes, “There are no indications that China is designing, testing, or producing new nuclear weapons designs.” In other words, the Chinese realize that there are much better ways of spending their money than building a huge and ultimately useless arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Following the Democratic Party’s landslide wins in 2008, several members of the GOP leadership began to advise its membership to adopt a more inclusive approach to minority voters — specifically Latinos. However, Latinos in McLennan County recently had the door shut in their face by the Republican Party itself.

Members of the Hispanic Republican Club of McLennan County have made it their mission to reach out to Hispanic, black and young adult voters in the area that have been largely ignored. However, shortly after the group’s launch party, the McLennan County GOP leadership blasted out an email stating that the club “is not sanctioned by, nor is it affiliated with, the Republican Party of McLennan County.” The email’s claim that the club was also not endorsed by the state GOP’s executive director was quickly refuted by a document in which then executive director Eric Opiela personally authorized the club to work on behalf of the party.

McLennan County’s Republican Party lacks precinct chairs in about 40 precincts and the club is trying to get those chairs filled by Republicans. County GOP leader M.A. Taylor questions “the club’s strategy of recruiting precinct chairs” and criticizes conservative activist Janet Jackson who he describes as “the driving force” behind the club and “a pain in our backside.” However, Jackson believes that Taylor is simply worried that more precinct chairs might “dilute” the McLennan County GOP’s current leadership. Taylor was also skeptical of the club wanting to start a “Web site thing and have Hispanics subscribe to it,” stating that the “whole approach puzzles me.”

Robert Aguilar, chairman of the local Tejano Democrats group isn’t too worried. “They’ll get some people,” says Aguilar, but the GOP’s positions on immigration and other issues will dampen their success and, according to him, the Democratic Party offers a stronger platform for Latinos and other minorities. Aguilar points out that, ultimately, “Most Hispanics are still struggling for safety, security and health needs…the Republican Party can’t see what’s happened to us because they don’t live in our neighborhoods.”

Our guest blogger is Brian Katulis, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

At a conference I attended in Europe last week on the way forward in Iraq, Iraq’s acting national security adviser Safa Hussein raised three main concerns about the coming years in Iraq:

- Iraq’s national security architecture and where the Kurdish pesh merga fits;

- What Hussein called the “militarization” of Iraqi society; and

- Civilian control of Iraq’s intelligence agencies.

Most people are well aware of the long-standing Arab-Kurdish tensions that continue to trouble northern Iraq, especially within the belt of disputed territories that run south of the areas controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government — forces from Iraq’s central government and Kurdish forces have had standoffs in places such as Khanaqin, Altun Kopri, Bashiqa, Mosul Dam, and Makhmour, among other places.

But the broader challenge of the overall size of Iraq’s security forces is something the next Iraqi government may need to address. Iraq now has nearly 750,000 — three quarters of a million people — serving the military, police, and other security forces. And this could present some challenge for civilian oversight and control of security agencies.

In a presentation Safa Hussein delivered at the conference (where I also talked with Iraq’s former national security adviser — see yesterday’s post), he raised the question, “What are the right levels of the Iraqi army and other security forces in the country?” Hussein went on to raise concerns about how having too large of a security presence could stifle movement and access of commerce and limit economic activities.

Hussein also raised the question of who controls which intelligence agencies in Iraq — something that has received some public mention in previous years in articles such as this one — but has not received as much attention in U.S. policy circles in recent years as attention has shifted to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As the United States continues to redeploy its forces from Iraq, keeping an eye on these emerging security trends will be vital to advancing some degree of stability in the country.