[PhillipHer]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...c=ealert070326

Pressure is mounting on the international community to stop Iran’s nuclear program, and key U.S. lawmaker Tom Lantos says he knows how to do it. He’d present countries with a choice: Either you’re with the United States, or you’re with Iran. Find out why in this Seven Questions.

Holocaust deniers: Should these guys be allowed to have a nuclear weapon?

FOREIGN POLICY: As a Holocaust survivor, how do you feel about the comments of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Do you think he believes what he says?

Tom Lantos: I have been attempting to get back to Iran for many years now, but the Iranians have so far chosen not to issue visas either to me or to any other member of Congress, so I have never met him. Obviously, I am as appalled as any civilized human being has to be at both his monstrous denial of the Holocaust and his sickening boast of wiping Israel off the map. I haven’t got a clue as to whether he believes this, whether this is ignorance, or whether this is just a desire to whip up anti-Israel sentiment.
But I think it’s very important for us to look beyond Ahmadinejad. The Iranians are an extraordinary, talented, and important group of people. It’s a great civilization, and there is growing disdain and rejection for Ahmadinejad in Iran. So I do not think we should tailor our policies vis-ÃÂ-vis Iran on the basis of his inflammatory statements, whether these are genuinely believed by him or not.

FP: Do you believe that he is in control in Iran, or, if not, who else is running that country?

TL: Well, he obviously is not in control because Iran has a very complex and convoluted pattern of leadership. Technically, the supreme religious leader, [Ali] Khamenei, is the number one leader, but the complexity of the various power structures is staggering. Clearly, though, Ahmadinejad speaks for the most extreme and irresponsible and ideologically and religiously fanatic segment of Iranian leadership.

FP: What do you believe is Iran’s role in the sectarian violence that’s going on in Iraq?

TL: It’s obviously very significant, and with the defeat of the Taliban and the removal of Saddam Hussein, we have done Iran a greater favor than probably any nation ever has in Iran’s long history. But it’s obvious that Iran has had an appallingly bloody and vicious participation in the sectarian uprisings and bloodbath. Their very understandable but nevertheless very negative attempts to make up for the domination of the Sunni groups for all these years will continue to be a very serious dilemma because they have been unwilling to share oil revenues, to give Sunnis a proportionate share of government responsibility. Unless they do so, the likelihood is that we will have to move toward a very federal solution similar to the one that my friend Joe Biden has been recommending.

FP: Do you believe that the United States should negotiate with Iran without preconditions?

TL: The fact that there was a regional meeting at the ambassadorial level, in my judgment, is a very modest step in the right direction. Where it will lead is difficult to predict. Hopefully, it will be followed in a month’s time at the ministerial level with Condi Rice attending. I have favored discussions, dialogue, and negotiations with all countries with which we have profound disagreements. Beginning in 1981, annually I took a congressional delegation to Moscow and, at that time, [to] several of the satellites for substantive discussions. I opened up contact with Albania after about 50 years of no contact. I also opened up contact with Libya and have been there now six times. When I went there, there was no diplomatic relationship between the two countries. There are now full-fledged embassies in Tripoli and Washington. And I also opened up contact with Pyongyang and plan to go back to North Korea for my third visit in the near future.

FP: Why do you think Libya decided to end its nuclear weapons program?

TL: Well, this is very speculative, but I think that members of the Libyan leadership who received their initial education in the United States or spent a lot of time in western Europe have persuaded [Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi] that the wave of history is not in the direction of terrorists or terror-supporting societies, but very much in the direction of the civilized world. And before it’s too late and he would suffer a fate similar to that of Saddam Hussein, he decided to open up and has followed through quite rapidly, with some setbacks. But it’s literally incredible how far we have come in two and a half, three years.

FP: You have a new bill coming out in Congress, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007. How does it differ from the Iran Sanctions Act that’s already on the books?

TL: In very dramatic ways. A nuclear-equipped Iran is unacceptable, and I am one of those who believe that diplomatic and economic pressure, if applied with maximum strength, may yet result in a change of course by the Iranian government. I therefore introduced two pieces of legislation to bring this about.

The first one is to establish a nuclear fuel bank, under International Atomic Energy Agency auspices, that will make nuclear fuel available for peaceful energy purposes not only to Iran but to all countries that qualify, and we’ll process the spent fuel. It removes completely the argument that the Iranian government makes because it will enable them to develop nuclear energy, albeit without full control of the nuclear cycle.
The second one, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, makes it impossible for the administration to sabotage the Iran Sanctions Act that we currently have on the books or this new act because it removes the power from the administration to waive the sanctions. The administration has not used its authority under the Iran Sanction Act so that in fact it bites. But if my legislation passes, the penalty and the sanction will be automatic.

There are many other features: It withholds funds from the World Bank in proportion to the amounts provided to Iran; it authorizes significant additional funds for cultural and educational exchanges with the Iranians; it will make it very difficult for Iran to obtain investment and to function in the global banking world; it denies nuclear cooperation with the United States to any country that would provide nuclear assistance to Iran. If it is enacted, as I fully expect it will be, it probably represents the single most effective avenue of compelling Iran to give up its military nuclear ambition.

FP: What’s your response to the Bush administration’s fear that the bill would penalize not only U.S. allies, but also China and Russia, important countries on the United Nations Security Council?

TL: I think it’s high time that countries like China, Russia, European countries, and others like Malaysia or Brazil recognize that they have to pay a price if they chose Tehran over dealing with Washington.

I cautioned the Indian government, at the time they were dealing with the India-U.S. nuclear agreement, that if they pursue their energy and military cooperation with Iran, I would do my utmost to block that legislation, which I had agreed to manage. And subsequently, the Indians made up their minds that Washington is more important to them than Tehran.

I think our friends and our non-friends will make up their minds similarly. You can’t play both sides of the street; you can’t get the benefit of full commercial and investment ties with the United States while strengthening Iran’s energy industry, which provides them with the resources to proceed with their military nuclear program. In this life, you have to make choices, and my legislation doesn’t penalize anybody; rather, it compels them to make choices any rational government should be perfectly willing to make.

Tom Lantos, a Holocaust survivor, is currently serving his 13th term in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is currently chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.