Iran is speeding up their missile production. Their envoys are now openly admitting that the regime is pursuing nuclear weapons. They've got more than enough material to make a bomb, and even Gates says they're an increasing threat.

So naturally the Dems have blocked sanctions in the House...

Yesterday, Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives defeated a Republican effort to impose sanctions on Iran. On a near party-line 174-250 vote, the House rejected a motion to send the State Department reauthorization bill back to committee with instructions that it be amended to include the text of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA)... Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), a long-time stalwart of pro-Israel and pro-national security efforts on the House Foreign Relations Committee, offered the motion, explaining that Iran's steady progress toward nuclear weapons capacity makes prompt action a matter of the utmost urgency. Somewhat incredibly, Rep. Berman, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee led the charge to defeat his own Iran sanctions bill!

... and Obama has blocked sanctions at the G8:

The United States is opposed to enacting a new set of financial sanctions against Iran that are due to be discussed in the G8 summit next week, diplomatic officials in New York reported Friday. According to officials, sanctions against Iran are expected to top the G8's agenda. Sources are also predicting a pointed debate between the heads of the industrialized nations over an appropriate response to Iranian authorities' suppression of reformist demonstrations in Iran led by Mir Hossein Mousavi and other Iranian opposition leaders... According to the Italian prime minister, "the general leaning [among G8 leaders] is toward sanctions." However, diplomatic sources in New York reported that American officials are working behind the scenes to prevent new sanctions from being imposed against Iran.

A week ago Berlusconi described new sanctions as likely. This morning the G8 announced that they're not imposing any new restrictions. It'd be interesting to know what changed.

Incidentally, the standard liberal argument - that new sanctions would undermine Obama's outreach - is crap even by the less than robust standards of the pro-engagement crowd. Clinton just warned Iran about "even stricter" sanctions if outreach fails. Presumably that's the "stick" we're carrying into talks.

But if that's true then we can impose sanctions now in response to, say, the IRG beating the shit out of citizens, declaring a military coup, and threatening to lash out against Western "enemies." Then we can offer the "carrot" of removing those sanctions later.

Unless Obama and Clinton rightly think that more sanctions won't work, since Iran circumvents them and laughs literally all the way into New York banks. If that's the case then the WH's reticence would make sense, since imposing sanctions now would given them time to visibly fail now. That would leave Obama's "tough diplomacy" looking very much like rank appeasement. Awkward!

References and previously after the jump...