Mr. President, the President of the United States is pursuing a strategy toward Iran that is badly flawed, dangerous, and likely doomed to failure. I am deeply concerned about Iran's nuclear program and its support for terrorism, and by indications that it is aiding groups in Iraq that are killing American troops, but the administration has so far failed to come up with an effective way to address these very serious matters.

For instance, less than 2 weeks ago the administration designated the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a material supporter of terrorism, and the IRGC for proliferation activities. I support sanctions that target proliferators and have introduced legislation that would strengthen our sanctions regime, but the designation of Iranian government entities raises new policy questions that do not seem to have been fully explored, and it may very well be counterproductive.

Moreover, this poorly timed action undermines efforts to win support for multilateral initiatives. Instead of acting alone, we should maintain and strengthen the international community's collective ability to counter Iranian ambitions, including with regard to its nuclear program.

Iran's actions pose serious threats to our national security. But aggressive saber-rattling is not an appropriate or effective response. The administration has shown repeatedly that it is too quick to turn to military power, and its threat, to address problems overseas. It has also shown time and again an inability to see the big picture. And it still seems to prefer unilateral over multilateral approaches. All of these are mistakes we cannot afford to have repeated.

We can't focus on Iran in isolation, the way the administration has focused for so long on Iraq without considering a broader context or taking a more comprehensive approach.
Instead of repeating the myopia of Iraq, the administration should approach the problem of Iran through a more strategic lens one that incorporates a broader and more integrated vision, that takes into account regional concerns, and that is consistent with our top national security priority, which is the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates. We need a national security strategy that addresses al-Qaida, Iran, Iraq, and the many other problems we face. Instead, the administration prefers to focus on Iraq, and now Iran, as if we had the luxury of addressing these challenges in isolation.

We must vigorously oppose any efforts by Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and its support to terrorist organizations that goes almost without saying. But we must curb these actions by seeing the whole board and by using more of the tools at our disposal. And that is not happening. Instead, the administration is taking an unnecessarily belligerent approach that runs the risk of increasing our vulnerability, both at home and abroad.

The United States should be working in unison with the international community, which shares our concern over Iran's nuclear program. At the same time as the new sanctions were announced, the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, was meeting in Rome with Iran's negotiators to discuss Tehran's nuclear program and discussions among the EU+ 3 comprised of France, Germany and the UK plus China, Russia and U.S.--are likely to continue at the end of November following the completion of another IAEA report.

In the past, Secretary Rice and others at State have publicly supported these talks and expressed confidence in the negotiations. But the administration's hard line position is unlikely to win over Russia and China, without whom there can be little progress.

The administration should be trying to persuade our friends and allies to increase their economic pressure on Iran, ideally through the U.N. Rather than imposing unilateral sanctions, we should be pressing the EU to announce multilateral sanctions, which would have a much greater impact given that we have not traded or invested in Iran for nearly 30 years. Instead, our bellicose rhetoric and hard-line approach could be undermining our ability to gain support from--Russia, China and even from some EU countries--to implement multilateral sanctions that Iran cannot ignore.

Trying to unilaterally isolate Iran further is unlikely to curb its nuclear program. And it won't make sure that Iran does not aid the proliferation of and access to weapons in Iraq. Veiled, and not-so-veiled, threats of military action aren't likely to work either. They are, however, likely to embolden Iran's hardliners as they seek to thwart moderates in that country who might otherwise encourage dialogue or political reform.

Instead of using the Iraq focused bilateral talks that have occurred in Baghdad as a platform from which to build, we are launching ourselves on to a collision course that may further endanger U.S. troops in Iraq in the near term. And that might only be the beginning. Our massive presence in Iraq undermines our ability to deal with Iran. It is draining our resources, exhausting our troops, exposing them to potential Iranian attacks, and undermining our credibility.

We should redeploy our troops from Iraq so that we can deal with Iran from a position of greater strength. Instead, the President is leading us deeper into the quagmire that his misguided policies in Iraq created.

It is essential that those of us here in Congress condemn the violent and defiant statements coming out of Iran. But we also have a responsibility as a co-equal branch of government to respond to this administration's aggressive words, ill-considered decisions and ad hoc policies, particularly when they may undermine our own national security. Dealing with Iran is a daunting task. But we are only making it more difficult with our counterproductive policies of isolation and war-mongering. We cannot again succumb to the shortsightedness that keeps us fixated on Iraq and drains the attention and resources needed to combat threats to our national security around the world.