The key lines in the resolved case have been highlighted by a Washington policy expert:

(6) Strongly rejects any policy that fails to prevent the Iranian government from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and that instead would settle for future efforts to “contain” a nuclear weapons capable Iran;

(7) Urges the President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability  and to oppose any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.

Laura Rozen reports that the resolution is not “technically binding”, but would “put additional pressure on the administration to limit diplomatic efforts to resolve concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, without recourse to another war.”

The pressure follows draconian measures proposed by members of Congress in 2011. In November, Ali Gharib reported about an amendment to H.R. 1905, the Iran Threat Reductions Act, which essentially bars contact between U.S. and Iranian officials unless a special waiver is requested by the president 15 days in advance. Associate Professor of Political Science at Swarthmore College, Dominic Tierney, responded in the Atlantic that the bill was based on “severe illusions” and that it would seriously limit the U.S.’s options if a “crisis” with Iran did break out.

According to Harvard’s Professor of International Affairs, Stephen Walt, the Graham-Lieberman-Casey resolution could do more harm than good:

If Congress is serious about U.S. national security, it would do nothing to tie the hands of an administration that clearly takes Iran’s nuclear program very seriously. Trying to rule out containment by fiat is worse than laughable; it is positively dangerous.

Walt added that the resolution isn’t really intended to advance U.S. interests. “It’s merely another opportunity for legislators to pander and posture to AIPAC and other hardline extremists,” he said.

Pundits and analysts that oppose diplomacy with Iran in favor of harsher measures and/or military strikes and Iranian regime change argue that Iran has failed to embrace offers of engagement and is not serious about reaching a negotiated settlement about its nuclear program. But what “options” with Iran will the U.S. be left with if official communication is almost completely prohibited and if even considering containment is being opposed?

If the Obama administration wants to avoid further confrontation with Iran, aren’t these measures making it increasingly difficult for it to do so?

Note: This post was updated with information from Laura Rozen’s Yahoo News report.

Yesterday, The Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Mark Dubowitz wrote on the Weekly Standard’s blog that:

If the Obama administration opts for only symbolic and selective measures, it could collapse our Iran policy, making it likely to require more drastic measures to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Observers in Tehran, Beijing, Moscow and elsewhere are watching. Will President Obama enforce the comprehensive sanctions he worked so hard to pass?

Dubowitz appears to be writing op-eds on a weekly, if not daily, basis calling for sweeping sanctions against any companies or individuals that do business with Iran. He has frequently called for the U.S. to “squeeze Russia and China”–two countries notoriously sensitive to public embarrassment and two U.S. bi-lateral relationships the Obama administration has worked hard to improve.

Dubowitz has made no secret about his view that both sanctions loopholes or enforcement could well lead to a “military option.” On September 13, Dubowitz, along with FDD’s Reuel Marc Gerecht wrote:

Any U.S. action will surely infuriate Moscow and Beijing, as well as those in Washington who have worked to “reset” our relations with both countries. Russia and China could retaliate in a variety of hardball ways that could greatly complicate American and European strategic interests. If Russia were to start delivering S-300 antiaircraft missiles to Tehran, for example, it could well provoke an Israeli preventive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

But today’s post by Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin suggests that there are others who aren’t from such neoconservative institutions as FDD, who are frustrated with the administration’s unwillingness to bring any and all sanctions busters in line.

Rogin points to a joint statement by Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) in which the senators applauded the long list of companies which have ceased business operations in Iran but warned that:

We are particularly concerned that the majority of the companies that GAO identifies as still selling gasoline to Iran are in China. We urge the Administration to complete its own investigations swiftly and enforce the sanctions law, comprehensively and aggressively, against any violators.

On September 30, Jon Kyl said:

If President Obama genuinely believes that a nuclear-armed Iran is not acceptable, he must stand by those words and apply the authority Congress has given him to punish all who are violating U.S. sanctions laws, particularly China.

But, as Rogin notes, it might not be as simple as sanctioning Chinese companies.

Complicating matters are the persistent rumors that China may have secured some type of immunity from additional sanctions as part of their agreement to support U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, which established relatively benign sanctions against Iran as punishment for its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons capability.

Given China’s increasing economic presence and international stature means that simplistic calls to “pressure” China might not be as realistic as hawks have been suggesting.

Then again, given the reality of a globalized economy where a sanctions regime is both difficult to put in place and enforce, perhaps neocons such as Dubowitz and Joe Lieberman (who recently indicated the U.S. should show that “a military strike is not just a remote possibility in the abstract, but a real and credible alternative policy that we and our allies are ready to exercise”) view Obama’s “symbolic and selective” enforcement of sanctions, as Dubowitz described them, as just one in a series of steps towards the inevitable calls for a military strike.

• The Wall Street Journal: Benoit Faucon and Spencer Swartz report on Iran’s announcement on Tuesday that it would begin exporting domestically refined gasoline. Iran has depended heavily on imported gasoline in the past. Yesterday’s announcement sends a message of defiance about international sanctions as well as an indicating that Iran has significantly boosted its domestic refinery capacity. “Iran has achieved self-sufficiency in production of gasoline,” said Ali Ashgar Arshi, the international affairs director at the National Iranian Oil Co. It also appears timed to echo statements from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the new sanctions have only made Iran stronger.

• The Weekly Standard Blog: Bill Kristol posts an excerpt from the prepared text of Joe Lieberman’s speech today at the Council on Foreign Relations. Lieberman will say, “It would also be a failure of U.S. leadership if this situation reaches the point where the Israelis decide to attempt a unilateral strike. If military action must come, the United States is in the strongest position to confront Iran and manage the regional consequences. This is not a responsibility we should outsource.” “It is time to retire our ambiguous mantra about all options remaining on the table. Our message to our friends and enemies in the region needs to become clearer: namely, that we will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability — by peaceful means if we possibly can, but with military force if we absolutely must,” concludes Lieberman.

• Commentary: Daniel Gordis, senior vice president of Jerusalem’s Shalem Center, writes in the October issue of Commentary on “The Other Existential Threat,” that it’s not only the possibility of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that poses a threat — but more existentially — the potential of Iran possessing such a bomb. For such a potential to hang over Israel’s head, he fears Jews will revert back “to the status of European victims-in-waiting,” “dependent on the choices their enemies make.” In outlining what is at stake for Israel, Gordis does not believe Israeli leaders will allow Iran to go nuclear and concludes: “If Barack Obama could come to understand in precisely what way this is a matter that goes to the heart of Israel’s very existence [...] his administration might recognize the profound nature of the present moment and history’s call to this president to do what must be done.”

• Spiegel Online: In a contentious interview, Iran’s nuclear agency chief Ali Akbar Salehi says that Iran “will not give up [its] guaranteed right to enrich uranium to a low level for civilian purposes” and accuses the new director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, of being biased against Iran. Salehi says he is not threatening to end cooperation with the IAEA, but is issuing a “friendly, but serious, warning that one should not allow oneself to be politically instrumentalized.” He considers the MEK’s allegations about a covert nuclear facility an “unjustified allegation,” and maintains Iran is still open to a deal to acquire fuel rods for its Tehran Research Reactor.