Oregon Democrat Earl Blumenauer delivered these speeches on U.S. foreign policy, Iran and the nuclear deal. The congressman acknowledged the 1953 coup and the contempt America has “earned” in the eyes of many Iranians, relating it to similarly specious U.S. decisions in the present. After 50 years in politics and 27 years in Congress, Blumenauer retired in Jan. 2025.

Mr. Speaker, in an era of violence in the Middle East, tragedy in Syria, and turmoil in Egypt, there is some very encouraging news surrounding Iran.

The most important signal may have been the election of Hassan Rouhani as President of Iran who is by no means a moderate by anyone’s stretch of the imagination except in the context of Iran. He was the choice of the Iranian people for change, for a different path to reduce the collision course with the United States and the crippling sanctions we have imposed. His foreign minister, Mohammad Zarif, is an able and experienced diplomat with strong relationships with the people who have dealt with him for years both in the United States and Iran.

I am encouraged by the reports in the news and in the opinion pages which point out something I have long argued on the floor of this House: the convergence of interests between the United States and Iran. People forget the key role that the United States played in the emergence of the modern state of Iran, of the constitutional revolution beginning in 1905, where American influence was profoundly felt.

Unfortunately, for the last 60 years, we have serially mismanaged our relationship with Iran. How would we have felt if a foreign power worked to overthrow our democratically elected government and install a dictator? That is exactly what the United States and Great Britain did in 1953 and how the Shah returned to power.

It is amazing that the majority of Iranians still has positive feelings towards the United States, which they do. People forget the alignment of interests between the United States and Iran after 9/11 that led them to help us deal with post-Taliban Afghanistan. In the capitals of some of our supposed allies in the Middle East, people were cheering on that tragedy. On 9/11, people in Tehran were standing in solidarity with Americans. This, of course, was before George Bush recklessly included them in his infamous “axis of evil” pronouncement. The Iranian people are distinct from the Arabs and are proud of their Persian heritage, stretching back thousands of years.

Iran is an important part of any ultimate solution in stabilizing Iraq and in resolving the Syrian conflict. Yes, they have advanced nuclear development, and we rightly should be deeply concerned with their pursuit of nuclear weapons. That is why one of the Obama administration's greatest foreign policy triumphs has been to marshal support of the world for this stringent, comprehensive regime of sanctions. It has made a huge difference—driving down the value of their currency, depleting their foreign reserves, and creating extreme inflationary pressures on their economy.

Now is the time to see if a solution can be developed. It is decidedly not the time to ratchet up sanctions even further. Nothing would undercut the more moderate forces in Iran, and more pressure could be very counterproductive because we are at risk of sanctions fatigue by our partners. Other countries that do not share our same policy positions and deep hostility towards the Iranians have gone along with sanctions. To expect that countries like China, India, and Russia are going to follow us with even more extreme sanctions and turn their backs on the progress is questionable at best. At worst, it would end up losing support for the sanctions regime we have now, would strengthen the hand of the hard-liners who do hate America, and would set back long-term prospects for peace, not just for Iran, but for Syria, Iraq, and throughout the Middle East.

Most experts I have encountered feel Iran could have built a nuclear bomb years ago, but they didn’t. Recently, they have slowed the pace of their nuclear activities and have been open to proposals unthinkable a year ago. The rush to undercut the process is shortsighted, counterproductive, and it risks accelerating the development of Iranian nuclear weapons.

Now is the time to accelerate diplomacy, not to walk away. It is decidedly not the time for the United States Congress to throw a monkey wrench in the diplomatic procedures and to ratchet up sanctions. We can always reimpose sanctions, but may not be able to recreate this diplomatic opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard on the floor that we shouldn’t base our diplomacy on the Iranian political calendar—I agree—but we shouldn’t base our diplomacy and our foreign policy based on our political calendar.

Recently, we enacted the most effective, crippling economic sanctions against Iran—ever—and it was done by the hard work of the administration, supported by Congress, to be able to mobilize an unprecedented coalition of people who agreed with us that they wanted to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons and sending that signal.

But sadly, you can forget about President-elect Rouhani. This weakens President Obama. The optics now are to pull the rug out from underneath the newly elected moderate candidate. He’s not my guy, he’s not yours, but of the choices, it was a signal by the Iranian people.

Think about the future tools. Are you really going to be able to ratchet up these sanctions much more dramatically? Do you expect China and Japan are going to follow that path? And, if they work, what about the dislocations to the American economy and the global economy in moving this oil off the market? I think people ought to consider that. Ultimately, the only solution is a diplomatic solution to try and work this through. We’re not going to go to war and nuclear bomb them. We are not going to occupy Iran.

It’s ironic. Until recently—maybe still—Iran is the only country in the Middle East that had a positive view of Americans despite the fact that we helped the British overthrow their popularly elected President, Mossadegh, in 1953 and install the Shah as a dictator to rule over them. [Prime Minister, not President]

I think there is a possibility that that recent election makes a difference in Iran. I hope it does. But one way to guarantee that it doesn’t is to tell the Iranian people, We don’t care what you do. We’re going to rachet up the sanctions. We’re going to undercut the new guy. We’re going to tell you that we’re just going to go down this path. It ought to be based on facts, on reason. Let these sanctions work. Don’t undercut our President and the ability to be flexible if there is some daylight. Don’t poke the Iranian people in the eye and ignore the sorry history we’ve had of fumbling the relationship with that country.

April 26, 2006, U.S. House of Representatives, Wash., D.C.