The Financial Times published an analysis piece yesterday that provides a thorough summary of why the United States appears poised to embark on a course of further sanctions against Iran – and why those sanctions are very unlikely to change Iran’s strategic calculations with regard to its nuclear program.
As the article explains, sanctions are likely to fail for two interrelated reasons. China and Russia will be reluctant to agree to sanctions that threaten either Iran’s gasoline imports (which come in part from China) or arms sales (which come almost exclusively from Russia). Furthermore, even if sanctions could be implemented successfully (a highly doubtful proposition), they would be more likely to boost popular support for the regime than to force the Islamic Republic to capitulate to Western demands. International sanctions on Iran have never worked before and there is no reason to think this time will be any different.
As New America Foundation/American Strategy Program Director and The Washington Note Publisher Steve Clemons notes in the article, “The sanctions path has more to do with providing a focus for American frustration and emotion than achieving a successful course of correction by Iran.”
The entire article can be read here.
– Ben Katcher
For starters, did the president Obama respond to the Iranian president’s letter?
In actual arms deliveries, Iran’s imports of Chinese arms are not insignificant, so it’s not quite accurate to represent Russian arms sales to the IRI as “almost exclusively”. Furthermore, it appears that Russia is stalling on further big ticket arms deliveries, such as S-300 SAM systems.
Something that Flynt said yesterday bears repeating: “neoconservatives and others who have long opposed U.S. engagement with the Islamic Republic and instead advocate military action and support for regime change in Tehran are using what we believe is an increasingly widespread misreading of Iranian political dynamics in the United States to promote their preferred policy agenda.”
Now, pray tell, what could their preferred agenda possibly be? According to the neo-con men, every problem has a military solution, which is almost always the preferred solution. For them, Iran is the perfect festering sore–a problem that cannot really be solved militarily, but justifies a massive arms buildup, benefiting their underwriters.
IMHO neoconservatives are shills for defense industries putting private gain ahead of public interest. How many times do we have to sing that particular refrain before people start getting what Washington is all about?
I have written about this before. Only if it were possible to “blockade” Iran would economic warfare work. Since Iran is not an island and has the entire hinterland of Asia to draw upon for supplies, any sanctions regime would be difficult to enforce. If the the EU (especially Germany), Russia and China wholeheartedly supported sanctions, then possibly Iran could be bent to our will. However, the support of these nations for more sanctions is not going to be forthcoming. Therefore, sanctions will not work.
I like to believe that the current administration is not so stupid that it thinks sanctions will achieve anything substantial, or even serve as a diplomatic stick. I tend to think further sanctions will be sought by this administration simply so that it can be seen to be “doing something.”
The alternatives to sanctions are 1) military action; 2) engagement with a view toward establishing a strategic partnership with Iran. Military action, like sanctions, takes us nowhere. Clearly the administration should try engagement. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have the guts to do so.