The New York Times published an article on Saturday with the following headline: “Medvedev Says Russia May Back Sanctions on Iran if Deal Falls Apart.”
The headline makes it sound as if Russia has changed its position on sanctions, but this is not the case.
Here is what the article quotes Medvedev as saying
If agreements are reached on the programs linked to uranium enrichment and its use for peaceful purposes in Iran, we will with pleasure take part in these programs. If the Iranian leadership takes a less constructive position, then anything is possible, in theory…We would not want this to end in imposing sanctions under international law, because sanctions, as a rule, are a complex and dangerous path,” he continued. “But if there is no forward movement, no one can rule out this scenario.
While the headline is technically true (anything is possible), it is misleading. Past experience shows that Russia is unlikely to support meaningful sanctions. The statement above sounds much more like diplomatic hedging than a clear statement of policy.
The problem with headlines like these is that they reinforce the false notion in Washington that if “engagement” fails, the Obama administration should pursue other options, including sanctions, in an effort to isolate the Islamic Republic into submission.
This narrative is erroneous because it is that it is based on two false premises. The first is that the Russians and Chinese will (or might) go along with sanctions. The second is that more sanctions will force Iran to give up its nuclear program.
– Ben Katcher
Actually, these headlines are intended to introduce a false dilema over Iran: that either Iran must give up its enrichment program or be sanctioned (and everyone knows that ’sactions’ are just intended as an increment towards eventual confrontation.) Nevermind all the intermediate solutions that are possible — such as accepting Iran’s offer to open its enrichment program to US and multinational participation — which would of course be anathema to israel.