The Cable

Romney team: Obama ‘leading from behind’ on Iran

The Mitt Romney camp is trying to exploit Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu's criticism of the U.S. sanctions regime against Iran to portray Barack Obama's administration as "leading from behind" on Iran, on the same day the administration announced a new round of sanctions against Iranian companies and banks that do business with them.

"Since taking office three and a half years ago, President Obama has allowed Iran's nuclear ambitions to proceed unimpeded," said Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams in an e-mail sent to reporters headlined "On Iran, Obama has led from behind."

"As Israel's prime minister recently made clear, the Obama Administration's efforts haven't made an ‘iota' of difference. The president's refusal to take a tough stance when it comes to Iran has imperiled our allies and jeopardized our national security," Williams said.

"We have to be honest and say that all the sanctions and diplomacy so far have not set back the Iranian program by one iota," Netanyahu said after meeting Romney in Israel. "I believe that we need a strong and credible military threat, coupled with the sanctions, to have a chance to change that situation."

Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes acknowledged that the Iranians have yet to buckle in a conference call Tuesday.

"The purpose of the sanctions is to affect the Iranian calculus and it is certainly the case that Iran has not decided to live up to its international obligations, which why we are expanding the sanctions," he said.

But the sanctions have hurt Iran's ability to fund and procure parts for its nuclear program, while making it more difficult for the country's leaders to justify the program domestically, Rhodes argued.

"We do see an impact on the Iranian government," he said. "We share the assessment of the government of Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu that the purpose of the sanctions is to change the calculus of the Iranian government with respect to their nuclear program and until they do that we have to keep increasing the pressure."

Earlier Tuesday, on an Obama campaign conference call, former Pentagon official Colin Kahl asserted that Romney's Iran policy differs little from what the administration is already doing.

"A lot of this is Romney describing our current policy and disguising it as criticism," Kahl said.

The purpose of the White House call was to roll out a new executive order authorizing sanctions on any company that conducts significant financial transactions with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) or the Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO), the firm that conducts business for NIOC.

The president's message on the new executive order can be found here. Dealings with those entities would be allowed for petroleum-related transactions emanating from countries that the State Department has exempted from penalties for "significantly reducing" their oil business with Iran. The only country not exempted is China.

The new executive order also sanctions entities that provide petrochemicals to Iran, and those sanctions are not subject to exemptions.

"We're currently seeing attempts by Iran to circumvent current oil sanctions. The new executive order is aimed at closing loopholes and preventing circumvention," said Rhodes.

The Treasury Department today also designated for sanctions the Bank of Kunlun in China and Elaf Islamic Bank in Iraq, both of which Treasury says have aided in significant financial transactions with sanctioned Iranian banks. The Wall Street Journal criticized the administration for not going after the Bank of Kunlan in an editorial Monday.

"As financial institutions around the world have cut ties with designated Iranian banks to avoid the risk of involvement in Iran's illicit activities, Bank of Kunlun and Elaf Islamic Bank have done just the opposite," said Treasury Under Secretary David Cohen. "Today's action exposes these banks' continued business with designated Iranian banks, and effectively cuts them off from the U.S. financial system. It should also serve as clear warning to banks outside the United States of the risks of doing business with both of these banks, since they have knowingly provided their services to designated Iranian banks."

The Cable asked the administration officials to respond to critics of the new sanctions who say the administration is playing "whack-a-mole" by sanctioning foreign banks one by one only after they are found to be aiding Iran.

"I think the results demonstrate quite clearly that we have imposed broad-based, comprehensive, and highly effective sanctions against Iran," Robert Einhorn, the State Department's sanctions czar, said. "So I think it's not accurate to describe it as a game of whack-a-mole. This is an effort to really on a very comprehensive basis apply very significant pressure, and I think it's working quite well."

The Cable also asked Rhodes if the administration supports the compromise Iran sanctions bill that will likely move through Congress this week. Rhodes said the White House hasn't yet fully reviewed the bill but the administration will probably support it.

"We've been working with Congress as they've developed that legislation. We certainly share the goal, and we believe it can be an important tool in adding to the sanctions regime we have in place," Rhodes said. "We are reviewing the specific text of the bill that was produced, but we're quite optimistic that we're going to be able to continue to work in lockstep with Congress ... as we increase pressure."


The Cable

Romney and Rubio disagree on Syria

Republican nominee-in-waiting Mitt Romney supports directly arming the Syrian rebels, but his surrogate and possible running mate, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), says not so fast.

Rubio, a rising star on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, could add some foreign-policy chops to a ticket that is constantly being accused of being light on experience and competence in that department.

But on the major international issue of the day -- Syria -- Rubio and Romney just don't see eye to eye, because Rubio doesn't think it's a good idea to give the Syrian rebels U.S. weapons.

"The most important thing we can do in the short term is help them help themselves become a more effective fighting force and a more accountable one. And I think once that happens [arming the rebels]would be an option," Rubio said in a short Tuesday interview with The Cable.

"Where we could be most helpful to them is that we could be providing them with logistical support, medical support, and humanitarian support, which will allow them to become more cohesive in their fighting capabilities," Rubio said.

As it happens, that's the current policy of the Obama administration, although the administration has also decided to look the other way while Gulf nations send arms to the Syrian rebels, and some reports say that the CIA is even helping to vet rebel groups that might be recipients of those weapons.

Rubio even echoed administration's chief concern about the risks of sending U.S. weapons to the internal Syrian opposition, namely that there's no telling where the weapons might go and who might get their hands on them.

"Once they become more responsible and establish a chain of command so that the weapons aren't going to be used for ill-intended purposes and we know they have control over the supply chain, then I think we can explore arming the rebels," Rubio said.

In contrast, the Romney campaign has been clear that Romney supports the U.S. immediately and directly arming the Syrian rebels with U.S. weapons.

"[Romney has] said we should be willing to arm the moderate opposition. He's said repeatedly he'd be willing and support arming the moderate factions within the opposition," Romney campaign senior advisor for defense and foreign policy Rich Williamson said at the Brookings Institution last week.

Neither Romney nor Rubio supports the idea of U.S. established safe zones inside Syria to protect civilians there, as Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) advocate.

The Cable reported last week that most senators can't explain Romney's Syria policy because they are not familiar with it, and views among GOP caucus members are all over the map.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told The Cable that he supports safe zones but not arming the rebels, and that he just doesn't know how that jives with Romney's views. When asked about Romney's Syria policy, Cornyn said, "I don't know what it is."

Jessica Kourkounis/Getty Images