President Barack Obama meets in the Situation Room of the White House on Oct. 5, 2009, with Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns, third from left, and other advisors who had returned from talks with Iran officials in Geneva.
The AFP is quoting a “high-ranking European official” as saying that he or she expects China to drop its opposition to new sanctions for fear of isolation. Only time will tell whether that is the case.
But even if the P5+1 does arrive at an agreement on sanctions, the question becomes, “then what?” It is not clear what the United States and its P5+1 partners anticipate will happen as a result of sanctions. Revolution? Capitulation on the nuclear issue? Both seem unlikely and unsound bases for policy making.
As The Washington Note’s Steve Clemons has argued
The sanctions path on trying to influence Iran’s behavior has more to do with providing a focus for American frustration and emotion than achieving a successful course correction with Iran. Neither the bill that House Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman has been pushing in Congress nor a more watered down sanctions effort from the United Nations Security Council will influence Iran’s calculations at this point.
– Ben Katcher
Okay, I see where both of you are coming from. Kooshy, although I personally think your analysis is somewhat overdrawn, you’re probably right and I do understand now what your conception is. So, thanks.
Lysander, I agree that there’s a place for “speculative analysis.” I brought up the point because your writing seemed to reflect an assurance I personally couldn’t credit, based on anything I know. So, fair enough.
I won’t take the space to attempt a detailed analysis, but I think U.S. concerns about the Islamic Republic have been primarily (as Kooshy says) that the revolution and its ideology will spread. Hindering Iran’s economic development through sanctions was/is one weapon in that particular battle. I just don’t see any evidence that the U.S. is concerned about Iran’s economic development per se. I would be grateful to anyone who can produce evidence of any kind pointing to U.S. worry over Iran achieving economic primacy in the region (other than as a development that would tend to increase the regime’s prestige and political influence).
Jon
You misunderstood me, my point was sanctions had nothing to do with the nuclear issue; sanctions are placed to block the Islamic revolution spreading
to other Muslim nations, in last 30 years US policy toward Iran is only been set to prevent the Iranian revolution spreading in other Muslim ME countries
this domino effect is the biggest fear for the west. To implement this policy they have used proxy wars (Iran, Iraq, shieh, Sunni, Arab, Persian), sanctions, and UN resolutions. Religious conflicts, economic wars, and whatever else they could.
USSR invaded Afghanistan right after Iranian revolution to protect the Afghanistan and central Asian soviet republics for fear of spreading Islamic
Revolution in their Muslim soviet republics, and admitted it was a big mistake, west unleashed Salaam on Iran it didn’t work it actually worked against them and unified Iran then started a sanctions regime and a propaganda war which continues today and will not go away even if Iran sends all its nuclear equipments where Ghadafi sent his.
Sanctions are nothing new to Iranians sanctions basically is the same thing as siege on old fortified cities most of the time you will need a Trojan Horse to make them look
like it worked, to my understanding the west has actually built a Green Trojan Horse outside of the Iranian border and it’s been taken inside the fortification, but so far has not been very successful. If you now understand , well I am sure the Leverets understand
Sorry Jon, but all I can do is offer you my train of reasoning which I consider to be solid. Sanctions or designed precisely to harm a nations economy. There is no other reason to have them. Everything the United States does is consistent with trying to halt Iran’s economic development and that they have embarked on this path decades before Iran’s nuclear program was even an issue.
Now since there will likely be no written record of such a policy, what would constitute proof/evidence in your eyes?
Comparing today with the time of the Shah is entirely flawed. There was a Soviet Union at the time and the overriding concern was to win over as many nation states into an anti Soviet block. Sanctions would have driven the Shah into the Soviet Union’s arms. Also, the Shah was placed in power by the US and so could be expected to align Iran’s policies with those of the US. The IRI was not and cannot not.
Furthermore, instead of criticizing said lack of evidence, perhaps you can demonstrate how my line of thinking is flawed. Maybe you can offer another explanation for 30 years of Iran sanctions that is consistent with known phenomena.
When it comes to judging the intentions of a Government policy, we can not simply rely only on official statements. And yet since True intentions are hidden, we need sometimes to offer speculative analysis. The analysis I offered is consistent with known facts and prior US government policies. If you have a better one, please let us read it.
Thank you.
I asked for evidence, Lysander, not proof. I don’t expect you to “prove” your assertion, I’d just like to see some evidence that supports it.
Kooshy, I take your points but I don’t think they prove your case. There are other reasons why Iran was targeted in ‘96. You noted the inclusion of Libya — surely no one was worried about Libya achieving economic predominance in North Africa. It’s clear that there are powerful interests in the U.S. (and elsewhere) that are opposed to the Islamic Republic. But I see no evidence that their worry is Iranian economic dominance. If that were so, they would have been sanctioning the Shah’s regime.
I asked why people believed sanctions are designed to hinder economic development for two reasons: 1) I personally wanted to know what evidence there was for this. 2) I was hoping people might start thinking first before posting. Online commentary accomplishes absolutely zilch if it contains nothing but the suppositions and prejudices of the writer. If you want people to read you and give serious consideration to your arguments, your thinking and the exposition of your thoughts need to as rigorous as possible.
What is the point of whether the intent of sanctions is to retard economic development or not? The intent is always clearly stated: punishment. The effect is equally clear: reduced economic activity. Of course, no one will state outright that that is the case. It’s kind of like someone shooting someone else in the leg: “But I only meant to punish him! I didn’t mean to hurt him!” Yeah, right!
What comes after sanctions fail as expected? Easy: war. Dennis Ross has already made it clear that the whole “diplomacy/sanctions” game is just proforma and intended to make war more sellable. The pundits have already made it clear that we only have two options: war or sanctions. Accepting any Iranian nuclear program even highly monitored and limited is simply not an option to them.
Jon
Have you ever heard of “IRAN AND LIBYA SANCTIONS ACT OF 1996” was there an Iranian nuclear dispute in 1996 the answer is no. then why it was necessary to only sanction Iran on its oil and gas development. Any foreign firm that makes an investment of over $20 mill will be sanctioned, why only oil and gas development, because Iran without developing its oil and gas will be dependent to foreign (IMF, WB) finance just like turkey or Ukraine basically dependent to western finance.
Basically sanctioning energy technology transfer( Iran only rewards buyback contract’s to foreign developers of oil and gas fields to get the technology) for oil and gas development means slowing Iranian’s economic development, why would you need to slow them because you want to prevent (contain) transferring their idea to other client states around the block, how could others get the idea, when they see a good one that worked what would make this idea not successful in the eye of the other Muslim countries
1- Independency done checked ,
2- Democracy and a civil society ok relatively more than the others in the area at least you get to change the president every 8 years checked
3- Economic betterment of the population blocked how to block them, well I wrote about this on last post
Otherwise you are right Iran can be the best partner in the religion but when Hillary says Iran is the source of instability in the religion she means they can spread
the idea of independence to others and make the client regimes destabilized
This exact reason was what it was told to then Iranian ambassador to Washington Allayer Saleh at the time of oil nationalization and a few days before the 1953 coup by non other then under secretary of state.
Jon, if by proof you mean an official statement saying “we want to hinder Iran’s economic development, for its own sake” then I can’t offer you one.
Keep in mind that Iran has been under US sanctions since 1979. Under Bill Clinton in the 1990s, those sanctions were expanded. No one ever linked those sanctions to Iran’s nuclear program back then.
Now, broad based sanctions, such as those on Iran since 1979, have no other purpose other than to hinder economic development. What other purpose do you suggest? We are not talking sanctions against a specific import, but against any company that does any significant business with Iran.
Furthermore, keep in mind the United States has never stated under what conditions it would ever lift sanctions. If it’s the nuclear program why not say “end your program entirely and we will lift all sanctions?”
Now, ask yourself, what would happen if the US lifted all sanctions on Iran? How much foreign investment would flow in? How much technological exchange would occur? What foreign markets would be opened up to Iran? How much higher would Iran’s oil production be? How much natural gas would flow from Iran to Europe? Or India? Or China? How much stronger would Iran’s economy be?
With all that, what would happen to Iran’s regional influence? Would it diminish or grow? Would the US want it to grow? Would Israel want it to grow? Would that be less or more dangerous than the hypothetical possibility of Iran developing nukes?
Your statement about the Sunni-Shia divide is not accurate. Other than a relatively small number of Salafists and Wahabists, Sunni Muslims recognize Shiism as a perfectly legitimate form of Islam. This has been stated by Al Azhar University Scholars in Cairo, by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and by numerous Sunni Muslims that I know personally.
It was widely heard in 2006 during numerous pro Hizbullah demonstrations throughout the Muslim world.
Of course it is certainly true that there is now a Sunni/Shia split in Iraq, but prior to the US invasion, Sunni/Shia intermarriage was commonplace and without stigma.
Now what I have written is short of incontrovertible legal proof. But ask yourself if it makes sense. If not, what explanation makes more sense?
I’m sorry, I don’t see that anyone’s answered my question. What evidence, specifically, is there that the U.S. or the EU wants to “restrict Iran’s economic development as much as possible,” at least as an end in itself (as opposed to trying to hinder the nuclear program)? I’m not asking which of you feels that it’s the case; I’m interested in what the evidence is, and where that evidence can be found. Anybody?
Iran is only dangerous to the West’s interests in the region if the West insists on opposing Iran. There is no organic reason why Iranian and Western interests must clash. It is in the West’s power to change course toward Iran, and surely the Islamic Republic would respond to sincere efforts to engage on mutually beneficial terms (the last three words are, obviously, key). Does any think that Germany, for example, considers Iran dangerous to its interests? Germany sells billions of dollars worth of stuff to Iran; that has real meaning for the German economy and the German people.
A “strong Iran” will only ally with Russia or China if driven into one or the other’s arms by Western hostility. The West has things Iran wants that cannot be supplied by either Russia or China.
Iran has “the admiration of most of the Muslim world, Sunni or otherwise”? This would surprise any Middle Eastern or Islamic scholar I or anyone else can think of. The Shiite-Sunni divide is a real one, with 1,330 years of history behind it.
What was said about JFK and the U.S. military is quite true, though hardly recognized as such even today. Nevertheless, the U.S. military of today is not quite the same animal that it was pre-Vietnam. To aver that the conditions of 50 years ago still prevail in the current situation is no doubt convenient, but does nothing to advance our knowledge.
I have to say that what I read from all of you amounts simply to expressions of opinion. None of you pointed to even a shred of evidence to support your views. There’s nothing wrong with spouting off, of course, but making one’s feelings known convinces no one except those who share one’s prejudices. And what’s the good of that?
All Kooshy’s point deserves to be reiterated (with my interpretation):
1) Prevent rapprochement (keep stirring the pot to justify massive increases in “defense” budgets)
2) Keep all options on the table (future wars need to be in the pipeline. It takes time to convince Americans of a threat, particularly one that hasn’t attacked anyone.)
3) Weaken Iran, make it ripe for the picking, like Iraq was in 2003.
The military does not necessarily think about the aftermath. JFK repeatedly had to refuse the top brass, who were adamant about making a preemptive strike nuclear strike on the Soviet Union. They wanted to invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis, not knowing that the Soviets already had a lot of nukes there. And after JFK was assassinated, Johnson apparently told the brass to “make sure that he got elected, and then they could have their war.” Apparently, that’s what they were itching for.
These are not deep thinkers. They did not think through the consequences of a preemptive strike on the Soviet Union or Cuba (JFK had to do it for them.) They did not think through the aftermath of Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq. They just want to do what they have been trained to do and use the latest gadgets at their disposal.
Jon Harrison,
Kooshy pretty much answered your question. I have not looked at the record of offical statements carefully enough but I suspect there will be many hints that this is the intention behind sanctions. You will also find numerous statements alluding to the varied ethnic makeup in Iran and ideas of splitting off Azeris, Kurds, Balochis, etc from Persians.
And it was the same intention behind the Iraq sanctions (and invasion) Sanctions were in place against Iraq officially due to WMD and yet none were ever found. Still the sanctions were kept in place. Unsanctioned, Iraq had tremendous potential to rebuild.
Iran has much more. In addition to Kooshy’s points, Iran also has the admiration of most of the Muslim world, Sunni or otherwise. Now, it also has a buffer in Shiite Iraq.
Keep in mind that as far as the above points are concerned, it really does not matter who governs Iran. Even if it is a relatively pro west non religious government, the West will not accept a strong Iran that may ally itself with Russia or China. That could potentially serve as a rallying point for the worlds Muslims.
Here are the reasons why Iran is dangerous to the West’s interest in the region
Iran has Energy, Water, Large educated population, Semi industrialized infrastructure, Established labor force, Food Sufficient, Established Cultured Civil society
Centrally located between east and west, north and south, and Access to open water if it was left alone this will translate to a lot of GDP like China.
Now compare that to the rest of the region and see why it will pose a danger, closest to come is Turkey but they lack the energy so how to contain them that they Can’t export their idea’s the answer is economic sanctions, what would be a good reason to continue a sanction regime, oh I got one as our great leader use to say “Nocolar”
Oh, I think the hotheads will say “democracy comes after an attack” — not perhaps in so many words, and not yet (as they see it the time is not yet ripe to really ratchet up the pressure for military action), but eventually.
I am interested in Lysander’s idea that sanctions are first and foremost designed to restrict Iran’s achieving economic primacy in the region. I don’t see any clear cut evidence for it. Could you expand on why you believe this?
I think your other two points are exactly right. However, I also think sanctions are sought for the reason the U.S. has delineated: to stop Iran from getting the bomb. I don’t think there’s any doubt about it.
I personally don’t think the U.S. should worry if Iran builds a bomb, even though (as has been pointed out on this site) a nuclear Iran could prompt others in the region to go nuclear. Still, I don’t see why deterrence can’t work, be it between the U.S. and Iran, Israel and Iran, or Saudi Arabia-Egypt and Iran. My concern is to get U.S. Iranian policy on a track that benefits the American people, and that means engagement. The U.S. government has no business hurting American interests for the supposed benefit of Israel.
What indeed comes after an attack? This question is even more pointed than “what comes after sanctions?” Do we think that American (and Israeli) authorities have given much consideration to what the sequelae to an attack would be?
Lysander
You right on the money, the whole policy is exactly as you mentioned slowing Iran’s economic industrial development, further this has not just started recently this policy was actually implemented right after Iran’s revolution but after 1st Iraq war it got more intense since
than Dual military Containment was changed to Dual Sanctions Containment the irony is that the Iranians know this and that is why they do not take the West’s economic offers serious, when Khamenie says “if you change we will change” that is exactly what he means.
Be assured the West will never agree to change the sanctions policy, if they did Iran’s economy will become larger than the rest of the region, with Iran free from the oil export money for its budget it will have more leverage on the energy markets and that will be a big problem for the west no matter what the cost of the military presence in the region is
There are a number of reasons for sanctions, none of which are to actually stop Iran’s nuclear program. The reasons are
1) To prevent any rapprochement between the US and Iran as Cyrus at Iran affairs writes.
2) To keep the possibility of armed conflict “on the table”
3) Most of all, they are to restrict Iran’s economic development as much as possible. Without sanctions Iran’s economy would within a decade dwarf US allies in the region (Israel, Saudi Arabia) Indeed, I’m convinced that denying Iran economic power is far more important than denying it nuclear development.
If Iran were to offer to dismantle its entire nuclear program root and branch, in exchange for ending all sanctions, the offer would be rejected by the west.
These truths will not change no matter what government is in charge in Iran.
The related question is, “what comes after an attack?”
Interesting that the hotheads never want to talk about that…