Sanctions Against Iran
via Middle East Views | Sanctions Against Iran.
Saeed Ghasemzadeh
Iran’s nuclear issue has created a crisis for the international community and persists as time goes on. Those who believed that Iran’s nuclear issue was the result of George Bush’s aggressive and unilateral policies hoped that with Barrack Obama in the White House, the issue would be resolved through negotiations. Just a week after Obama came to office, he told Al Arabia television, “…as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.”
In the same interview president Obama also said, “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect,” and with these words tried create the groundwork for a conciliation with the leaders of fundamentalist groups in Islamic countries, including those in Iran. And in another unprecedented step, he sent a Nowruz message to the people of Iran and addressed the leaders of the Islamic republic to show that regardless of what was going on in Iran, he recognized the leaders of the Islamic republic and the Islamic republic itself. Another green light that was sent was the decision by the US to cut off funds for pro democracy groups that had in the past gone to Iran. One recipient of such funds was the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center whose funds were cut off by USAID in 2009. These funds were cut off during the height of the civil protests in Iran following the deeply contested June 2009 presidential elections. What is more, the same funds were transferred to another pro-democracy program for the Near East. Many analysts believe that this measure was to please the Iranian government. On the other hand the non appointment of Dennis Ross as the special representative on Iran was another measure to win Iran over. Particularly as this was followed by the appointment of John Limbert as the Assistant Secretary for Iran in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department. Limbert who speaks fluent Farsi is known in political circles as someone who advocates a softer approach to Iran and stresses talks. To this must be added the softer tone of the US Vice President on Iran.
Obama’s victory in foreign affairs, is a backlash against the neo conservatism that prevailed before him. So one can clearly say that Obama’s administration extended a hand of friendship to Iran with unprecedented good intentions.
At the same time, one must also mention the proposals raised by the US through the 5+1 group, all of which were rejected by Iran. But while the US extended its hand of friendship to Iran, Iran did not renege on its nuclear policies, and in fact expanded its nuclear policy to go for 20 percent enrichment of uranium. On top of this, one should note the recent report of the IAEA that Iran has been working on building warheads for ballistic missiles with the capability to carry nuclear weapons.
These issues beg the question that what must be done with Iran. Sanctions against Iran are the most immediate response. But are these sanctions defensible? This is not an easy question and it requires a detailed look at the issues. This article will try to look at them.
1-Will sanctions against Iran force the Islamic republic to stop its nuclear activities? The answer in a single phrase is no. To understand this and under what conditions will the Islamic republic stop its nuclear activities, one must first understand what is the goal of the Islamic republic in pursuing this policy. I believe that today after years into this crisis, it is clear that the goal of the Islamic republic was more than just access to nuclear energy. There is no economic justification for the pursuit of nuclear power generation. If it had been, regardless of crises that Iran has been in for so many years because of its nuclear policies, today under the current conditions, huge economic damage has come to the country because of the program, so it would have been only logical to end it. The rationale for the nuclear program among most Iranian authorities, which includes that of the supreme leader, is a security rationale. In other words the Islamic republic views the possession of nuclear weapons, or the technical and industrial know how to acquire them, a guarantee for its security against foreign threats. The Iranian regime has shown over the years that it knows how to play the game at the international level. By acquiring nuclear weapons, the Islamic republic strives to completely shield itself against any foreign aggression, and at the same time increase its regional influence. It also strives to limit what it calls Western interference in its internal affairs by using the nuclear stick.
There is strong evidence that the nuclear policy has an ideological rationale among a small minority of Iranians. This is the very same group that calls for the destruction of Israel, creating the conditions for the appearance of the hidden Imam, etc. Those who live outside this logic of Mahdi and Islam find these arguments and logic hard to understand and even unbelievable. But one must not forget that those who believe in the Armageddon have their own logic which is different from the pragmatists. The experience of extensive sanctions against Saddam and North Korea demonstrate that under normal circumstances this policy does not threaten the existence of the regimes. So in view of its ultimate goal, the Islamic republic will not be threatened by more economic sanctions. If the security rationale is what drives the Iranian nuclear program, this activity will stop only when the regime feels that there is a serious security threat to its security. The Islamic republic believes that because of its current entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan, including its war against Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, it does not have the capability to get involved in another war. In the incident when Iranians boarded a British navy ship and detained its sailors for a number of days, the Iranians were in fact testing the resolve of the coalition forces against a direct assault against them. At the same time, Iran regularly bombs its border regions with Iraq, to which must be added its role in arming the groups that are fighting the coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The response of Western governments has till now not convinced Iran that they are capable of confronting Iran. If Iran’s nuclear program is to be stopped through the military threat, then Iranian leaders have to be shown that Western leaders have the will and capability to engage it through other means as well. The minority that promotes its nuclear policy on its ideological beliefs has the potential to engage in very dangerous adventurism. This group has remained a minority in Iran, and since the death of ayatollah Khomeini it has been small. But events of recent years, and particularly those after the June 2009 elections which resulted in shifts in the hard power in the country, raise the question of whether this groups is still a minority or that these recent events have increased its power, particularly for those around ayatollah Khamenei.
2-Should the ineffectiveness of the economic sanctions means that the international community must abandon sanctions against Iran? If one looks at the issue of Iran from a global perspective, then Iran is a rogue state that has ignored repeated UN Security Council resolutions, continues its suspicious nuclear program and mocks at the international community. From the international perspective, ignoring Iran means giving the green light to other countries that may have similar aspirations as Iran. The strong international response to North Korea’s nuclear program and the destruction of its economic infra-structure, the greater part of which was the result of economic sanctions against the North Korean regime, has been an important deterrent for other countries with similar situations. Regardless of the outcome of any economic sanctions, leaving Iran to continue its nuclear program and refraining from imposing sanctions against it, sends the wrong message to other countries. So from the international perspective, sanctions against Iran are inevitable in the near future.
3-Will there be an international consensus for sanctions against Iran? Since a year ago, the groundwork for a consensus to impose sanctions against Iran has been building. President Obama since coming to office has acted in concord with China and Russia over Iran. Since coming to power, he has taken a different approach towards Russia and has given it some concessions to it over Georgia and Ukraine and also regarding the missile defense program in Europe. It appears that this policy has recently borne fruit regarding Russia’s policies towards Iran. As Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov recently said, “We are very alarmed and we cannot accept this, that Iran is refusing to cooperate with the IAEA.” Moe recently, it has shown a positive posture towards sanctions against Iran. It appears that the only remaining obstacle is China. The large trade between the US and China indicates that sooner or later, China too would support sanctions against Iran after China gets what it wants from the US in other areas. In fact just recently, China has on two occasions remained silent over greater pressure on Iran. The first instance relates to a recent IAEA report on Iran, while the second is over blacklisting Iran as a country that engages in international laundering.
4-Will crippling economic sanctions against Iran harm the pro-democracy movement in Iran, or will they help it? It is now said that Iran’s green movement needs to get into the national strike mode to get the upper hand so that it can cripple the country, and thus force down Ahmadinejad’s administration. Perhaps, as the green movement gets active, crippling economic sanctions can help speed up the victory of the green movement. While nationalism plays an important role in Iran in its dreams of grandeur and the return of the Achaemenian empire, and Ahmadinejad’s government has used this card in recent years to win support for his adventurist and aggressive policies in the region, but as this hype dwindles and particularly after the post-election events, crippling sanctions will be viewed by people as the consequences of Ahmadinejad’s bad policies. And if the green movement continues its activities and remains active, the massive protests because of economic sanctions along with the crippling of the administration, will engulf the regime in a serious crisis.
Should the green movement be suppressed and incapacitated, economic sanctions can act like a double edged sword where on one hand while they will produce massive disenchantment with the administration but they can also weaken the middle class that is now striving for democracy and push it into poverty. I believe that if the atomic cloth in Iran moves faster than the democracy clock, and the international community remains uncertain about accepting a nuclear Iran or fighting Iran, a war in the Middle East is inevitable because Israel views Iran as an existential threat. And regardless of who the winner of the war will be – although one may say it is clear who that will be when considering that Iran will be fighting Israel and its global allies – in view of the role that air superiority will play in such a battle, the Iran that will emerge from this conflict will be one in which its infrastructure will be completely destroyed but the situation will not be such that its middle class could slip into poverty. So while this is a tough decision to make, one may argue that if sanctions can speed up the pro-democracy movement faster than the pro-nuclear forces in Iran, then one can say economic sanctions may be the better choice because the alternative is the complete destruction of Iran’s century old achievements in modernization.
Other questions of course may be raised. For example, can sanctions be implemented in an effective way? Can smart sanctions be imposed? Are political sanctions effective, etc. But if the question today is what can Western governments do to help themselves and the Iranian people, then one can put the finger on one issue. The most important and effective step that they can take is to provide the infrastructure and hardware for the dissemination of uncensored information to the people of Iran. The creation and financial support of radio and television networks with Farsi programs, the provision of the means to break the Internet censorship that exists in Iran today, the extension of financial resources to expose Iran’s human rights abuses, and the extension of basic education and awareness of democracy and human rights to the Iranian people are the best assistance that Western governments can provide to speed up the pro-democracy movement in Iran. This will be to the benefit of the Iranian people and also to the benefit of Western governments and the international community.
* Published in Iran’s ROOZ on March 9.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments