White House to Go After Iran's Oil Income

Obama Administration to Push for Tough New Economic Sanctions if Iran Doesn't Come Clean on Nuclear Plans

(CBS/AP)  Updated 11:29 a.m. ET

The Obama administration is planning to push for new sanctions against Iran, targeting its energy, financial and telecommunications sectors if it does not comply with international demands to come clean about its nuclear program, according to U.S. officials.

The officials said the U.S. would expand its own penalties against Iranian companies and press for greater international sanctions against foreign firms, largely European, that do business in the country unless Iran can prove that its nuclear activities are not aimed at developing an atomic weapon.

Among the ideas being considered are asset freezes and travel bans against Iranian and foreign businesses and individuals who do business in those areas, the officials said. The officials spoke Monday on condition of anonymity because the measures were still under review.

As the White House mulls its next move, Iran continued Tuesday to defiantly tout its most recent play in the diplomatic chess game over its weapons program.

Iran tested its longest-range missiles Monday and warned on Tuesday that they can reach any place that threatens the country, including Israel, parts of Europe and U.S. military bases in the Mideast. The launch capped two days of war games and was condemned as a provocation by Western powers, which are demanding Tehran come clean about a newly revealed nuclear facility it has been secretly building.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said there has never been a stronger international consensus to get tough on Iran's nuclear program, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss.

Western nations accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons, while Iran says it only seeks to create fuel for nuclear power plants.

Diplomats from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - as well as Germany meet with Iran's top nuclear negotiator on Thursday to press once again an offer of incentives for Iran to halt suspect activity.

Of the Thursday meeting in Geneva, Gibbs said Iran must provide full transparency about its nuclear activities and ensure that it will only pursue peaceful nuclear energy uses.

"They have decisions to make. They have one of two paths that they can take. They can continue the path that they've been on, even while the world has shown conclusive intelligence about a facility in Qom, or it can make a decision to step away from its nuclear weapons program and build confidence in the world and ... enter into a meaningful relationship with the world based on their own security, but not based on nuclear weapons," Gibbs said.

The proposed sanctions would largely focus on investment in Iran's energy infrastructure and development, the officials said. Until now, the sanctions have dealt mainly with companies and people suspected of buying or selling weapons of mass destruction or their components.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Obama administration said they plan to target Iran's shipping industry if Thursday's talks in Geneva prove unproductive. Proposed sanctions would focus on insurance and reinsurance companies, which are crucial to shipping business, and would make exporting goods - namely, oil - more difficult and more expensive. The administration would also tighten existing, UN-backed sanctions and track down companies that ship with Iran through third-party traders.

CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports that going after Iran's ability to profit from its vast energy reserves is the key aspect to the expected new sanctions - as Iran "is not yet a nuclear power, but an oil power".

"To really have an impact on Iran you have to have an impact on its ability to export oil at substantial leveles," Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations told Martin. "

For those sanctions to be effective, adds Takeyh, they must have full backing from Russia and China.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev indicated a willingness to consider sanctions against Tehran for the first time during the United Nations General Assembly in New York last week, but China may prove a more difficult ally to bring onboard.

"The Chinese are actually investors in Iran - Iran's petroleum sector, and also consumers of Iran's petroleum products," Takeyh explained to CBS News. "So they might have some hesitation in terms of really imposing rigorous sanctions."

Click below to watch David Martin's Evening News report:

James Rubin, former Assistant Secretary of State in the Clinton administration and a weapons proliferation expert, cautioned, however, that the Obama administration should "be very realistic about what sanctions can do against a regime like this."

"The idea that this group (Iran's leaders), which has shed all the relatively moderate people over the last six months, is going to capitulate to the United States" is unlikely, Rubin told "Early Show" anchor Maggie Rodriguez on Monday.

Other U.S. officials familiar with the process that dates back to the Bush administration are also skeptical that Iran will agree to demands to fully disclose its intentions. Iran repeatedly has denied it wants the bomb and that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

Previous meetings - the last in July 2008 - have not made progress and the officials said they did not think Thursday's talks in Geneva would produce any significant developments on the nuclear front.

Instead, the officials said they expected Iran to raise a broad range of global political concerns while the other participants focused on Iran's nuclear program, including the disclosure last week of a new uranium enrichment facility.

These officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the talks, said they believed another round of talks would be scheduled before mid-November, at which Iran would face demands to address the international community's concerns.

If they refuse, the officials said the U.S. and its partners would move ahead with new penalties.

[Dr_777]

As you know from previous statements from me, IRAN already has some ATOMIC WEAPONS. These said ATOMIC WEAPONS were purchased from Russia, just after the COLD WAR.

IRAN wants additional ATOMIC WEAPONS. IRAN may even try to purchase additional ATOMIC WEAPONS from other countries! Given IRAN current GOVERNMENT, IRAN should NOT be allowed additional ATOMIC WEAPONS or any other WEAPONS of MASS-DISTRUCTION! If IRAN'S GOVERNMENT were to change significantly in the future, the GOVERNMENTS of the WORLD should reconsider, at that time, to allow IRAN to have WEAPONS of MASS-DESTRUCTION!

There should NOT be any invasion whatsoever without the consent of the UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNSEL! The UNITED STATES, THE EUROPEAN UNION, RUSSIA, AND CHINA all have to agree on the FATE of IRAN, before any invasion can occur!

It is unfortunate that religious extremists control IRAN'S GOVERNMENT! Their (IRAN'S CURRENT GOVERNMENT) INSANITY is very very very serious to WORLD SECURITY!

[Dr_777]

As you know from previous statements from me, IRAN already has some ATOMIC WEAPONS. These said ATOMIC WEAPONS were purchased from Russia, just after the COLD WAR.

IRAN wants additional ATOMIC WEAPONS. IRAN may even try to purchase additional ATOMIC WEAPONS from other countries! Given IRAN current GOVERNMENT, IRAN should NOT be allowed additional ATOMIC WEAPONS or any other WEAPONS of MASS-DISTRUCTION! If IRAN'S GOVERNMENT were to change significantly in the future, the GOVERNMENTS of the WORLD should reconsider, at that time, to allow IRAN to have WEAPONS of MASS-DESTRUCTION!

There should NOT be any invasion whatsoever without the consent of the UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNSEL! The UNITED STATES, THE EUROPEAN UNION, RUSSIA, AND CHINA all have to agree on the FATE of IRAN, before any invasion can occur!

It is unfortunate that religious extremists control IRAN'S GOVERNMENT! Their (IRAN'S CURRENT GOVERNMENT) INSANITY is very very very serious to WORLD SECURITY!

[Dr_777]

As you know from previous statements from me, IRAN already has some ATOMIC WEAPONS. These said ATOMIC WEAPONS were perchased from Russia, just after the COLD WAR.

IRAN wants additional ATOMIC WEAPONS. IRAN may even try to purchase additional ATOMIC WEAPONS from other countries! Given IRAN current GOVERNMENT, IRAN should NOT be allowed additional ATOMIC WEAPONS or any other WEAPONS of MASS-DISTRUCTION! If IRAN'S GOVERNMENT were to change significantly in the future, the GOVERNMENTS of the WORLD should reconsider, at that time, to allow IRAN to have WEAPONS of MASS-DESTRUCTION!

There should NOT be any invasion whatsoever without the consent of the UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNSEL! The UNITED STATES, THE EUROPEAN UNION, RUSSIA, AND CHINA all have to agree on the FATE of IRAN, before any invasion can occur!

It is unfortunate that religious extremists control IRAN'S GOVERNMENT! Their (IRAN'S CURRENT GOVERNMENT) INSANITY is very very very serious to WORLD SECURITY!

[czhnder]

I think this is what screaming liberals accused George W. of doing in Iraq. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

[quapawsix]

Just a thought how about our EU partners stop selling anything to Iran and that includes our Good Buddies in China and Russia, who's been selling them the equipment to build these reactors. May be we are targeting the wrong country.

[jankebenzone]

Info for all der idioten who think if we just leave the Iranians alone, then everything will be just peachy. Irans Armijihadmad and hitler hate/d the jews with the same desire to wipe them off the face of the earth. Before ww2 started, many with insight warned that hitler should be stopped before all hell broke loose,but those warnings where ignored by those who thought they knew better and millions lost their lives because of giving credence to the inept. Make no mistake, Irans amadman is just another hitler whose sole purpose is to exterminate the jews, stopping him NOW will prevent a whole lot of grief for the world.

[Questionews]

They had a local show on here in Portland with an economist that specialized in future trends in Gov. revenue generation. One thing they touched on is the future of oil. Many state governments & the Fed have already established contingency plans for the time when oil imports & overall use begins to decline and along with that the gas taxes that they get. Their contingency plan is to start imposing additional sales fees on new vehicles which could add up to 15% or 20% to the cost of a new car in addition to even higher taxes imposed on gas. That's really going to make selling new cars tough. Gas taxes are a huge source of revenue for state & fed Govs. and encouraging people to reduce oil consumption is starting to slow down the gas tax spigot. They will go after this lost revenue in other areas, but at this time I don't know what they have their eyes on. Tires? Tolls?

[rdepontb]

Oil, oil, oil. Give me a break. How did we ever become such hostages? More importantly, how do we treat our addiction?

Most imporantly, how do we react to this rogue nation at this point? They're acting like schoolyard bullies. Whop them in the nose at the meeting this week? Sounds like that's the plan. Show them they're not the center of the universe? Sounds like Obama's hiking off to Copenhagen is just the ticket for that. Sounds like we're proceeding just fine.

[wmsshields]

I hope Obama goes after, and gets, Iran's income from oil. Maybe then he will quit going after our income with "Cap and Trade", healthcare reform including access to our bank accounts as well as mandatory premiums paid to the White House, and whatever he is planning to do to enslave us next year.

[rickyg2]

kcits ,you are the dtupid one,who doesn't know anthing about these subjects.

[gregbirddizelec]

I used to support "world federalism," the globalization movement to spread economic wealth, more materialism so that varied peoples on earth could have more things in common, to make rules about, to cooperate in doing, etc., resulting ultimately in a "world government" mostly comprised by G8 or now G20 type structures.

The smaller and inequitable capital position of the other nations, exacerbated by in-equities within the individual countries themselves, exacerbated by the federalist agenda itself, have made the chances of a better world, meaning one less violent and more prosperous, more likely to come by a strengthening of international law, especially regarding military force and needs based human rights (for food, shelter, clothing and fuel): using the United Nations and the World Courts, representatives of all nations already or hopefully soon.

The record of the persons heading the UN, or the executive, has it seems, been pretty good over the UN's history.

HAD UN RESOLUTIONS AND ITS LISTED HUMAN RIGHTS BEEN ENACTED, AND BEEN ENFORCED, MANY OF THE HUNDREDS OF WARS AND GENOCIDES SINCE WWII WOULD HAVE NEVER STARTED, OR WOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED SOONER.

Fact: Capitalism is incompatible with physical force and violence, and to this day there has never been a single nation upon the earth that's practised Capitalism. Nations, nationalism, and every philosophy that enthrones them, are the enemy of Capitalism, of humanity, and always have been. What we've had that all call Capitalism is in fact Corporate Socialism.

[robham777]

gregbirddizelec. There were in the neighborhood of 50 UN resolutions from 1991 and 2003 concerning Iraq. The U.S. more or less unilaterally said enough is enough, and enforced the resolutions. Most people would probably say that the enforcement of those resoutions had little to do with the invasion of Iraq, so what purpose does the UN serve when it's resolutions have no muscle?

[dnatech]

I hope someone from Iran is reading this...
Go, Iran, Go! Don't listen to this Zionist-controlled media in the U.S. with their continuous war-mongering. Americans are behind you contrary to what is "allowed" to be broadcast. This country was sold out to the bankers in the 1980s. America no longer belongs to the American people...it is in the hands of political filth and their cronies. Europe and America can not sustain their slicing up the world into their spheres of influence anymore. The empire of debt will soon collapse.

[jxknowles]

Sanctions do work. We don't need an immediate solution to this problem. It has been festering for a long time. The last of the nuclear wannabes, North Korea and Iran, will slowly lose their fight. The Iranian people are close to upending a tyranical rule of government.

We can't pretend we can answer an attack by vaporizing innocent civilians in any country. That's just sheer lunacy. If Israel attacks a Muslim nation, that's not good for anybody.

[armik80]

wrong wrong wrong! sanctions without solution? no way! obama must start to see the realety in iran. pp of iran don`t want current regime. khamenehii is in crisis inside & outside iran.he has lost his authority inside it`s owne power ranck there is no more chance for his terrorist and fundementalis gov for long term. all the world`s free countery`s leaders must support iranian oppsition now tomorrow is to late. yes, we have iranian on right track ,join them ,help the real iranian democrat alternative NCR.

[usmc1976]

let odumba do more damage to the usa,,,,all iran has to do is shut down its oil supplys,,,,odumba would be clueless again seeing gas prices at 5.00 a gallon

[smoknmirrors]

The best hope Iran's phlematic leadership has in obtaining widespread population support for development of nuclear power is their ability to convince that population that dependency upon their vast reservoirs of oil is a long term dead-end proposition. Not only will they eventually run out and become dependent upon other nations for their fate, but other nations can now influence or try to influence Iranian policy by manipulating prices and quantities, market share and accessibility to those markets. By sanctioning income from their oil, the U.S. and its coalition of the willing are aiding and abetting the very enemy it is trying to force into a compliance designed to forestall further nuclear development. The U.S. policy is counterproductive in that it encourages the very behavior it wishes to stem and gives evidence of the validity of the claims made by Iran's leaders. The U.S. policy is counterintuitive in that it seeks to push a sovereign nation to do that which the U.S. would resist were the circumstances reversed. We were supposed to see "change" in the foreign policy of the United States with the election of Barack Obama. Of course, that was when he was campaigning. Now that he's elected, things are different. Well, not really.

[robham777]

ConstantineXI. Mutually Assured Destruction does not work with suicide bombers.
----------------
Therin lies the crux of the problem. The toys that Iran has recently put on display are not good for much other than bolstering the public faith in the Iranian Government. If Iran were silly enough to use one of these bottle rockets to attack a neighbor then the game would be over. I am sure that it would be a cake walk for the U.S. to destroy Iran,s nuclear facilities, but dealing with the consequences of this type of action would not be nearly as easy. The reality is that even if Irans nuclear program is destroyed, the knowledge they have gained will still exist.

[ibsteve2u]

Just hoping that the U.S. doesn't trade away the right to address the artificial inequities in free trade - i.e., doesn't trade away the future of America's working folks in the middle class and the poor - in order to get China's cooperation.

'Cuz I know fer shore, fer shore that America's right would love to do exactly that.

[abayat]

Here in the heartland, I nearly forgot that Iran existed until your news and the other major network news media organizations had been beating this issue to a pulp. You have done a great job of advancing anti-Arab bias to its highest poll ratings, finally exceeding the new President and the former Bush administration poll ratings.

You have driven home the hate of millions of people we have never known. Congratulations on all your hard work, and I for one am completely sold on it. Furthermore, I do not suspect your news organization, or any other, of advancing this issue on top of other issues in the news in the service of another nation's foreign policy. I am sure, your news organization is devoted to us Americans, before any other nation.

But then again, I have my doubt. It seems you have catapulted this issue in favor of raising alarm in the service of little Israel. I nearly forgot that Israel existed too! SO NOW YOU ARE DOUBLY TO BLAME in raising this nonsense to my attention.

And judging by the readers comments, this issue is not at all one driven by the media. It must be some kind of perpetual fixation. Please help remedy my xenophobia.

[kevjustice]

So its ok for the U.S. to have nuclear weapons but not Iran or other countries the U.S. would like to dominate.