(Photo Credit: U.S. Department of Defense Photostream)
As the United States continues its march toward imposing further sanctions on Iran, it is unclear exactly what it is that the administration thinks sanctions will accomplish.
Here is what the New York Times quotes United States Defense Secretary Bob Gates saying after a meeting with United Arab Emirates Crown Prince Mohammad bin Zayyed al Nuhayyan:
“I think there is an understanding that we have to try this, this is the next step,” Mr. Gates said at the Emirates Palace hotel, speaking of the sanctions. Although engaging Iran had produced no results, he said, “the engagement policy served to expose the Iranian government to the rest of the world, in terms of its policies, for what it is.”
Mr. Gates said that studies of situations in which sanctions have worked — he cited anti-apartheid efforts against South Africa as an example — showed that their success “was because there was very broad international support and there were very few cheaters.” There is similar support now against Iran, he said, adding that “the prospects of success are certainly better than in a lot of other situations where sanctions have been applied.”
Putting aside the fact that there is not broad international support for sanctions – China, Turkey, Brazil oppose them, to name a few – Gates does not articulate a clear theory of change. That is, he does not make clear what he expects or hopes sanctions will accomplish.
In the absence of an explicit theory, we are left to conjecture.
One possibility is that the United States thinks it can squeeze the Islamic Republic so tightly that it will capitulate and give up its nuclear program or agree to an inspection regime favorable to Western interests. This is a problematic theory on many levels, but it is conceivable that the administration is basing its policy on this idea.
The second possibility I can conceive is that the administration thinks sanctions could lead to “regime change.” As Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett have pointed out, both Vice President Joe Biden and National Security Advisor Jim Jones have explicitly connected sanctions and regime change.
Here is what Biden said on February 2:
We are moving with the world including Russia and others to put sanctions on them. I think that we’ve moved in the right direction in a measured way…We’re going to end up much better off than we would have had we tried to go in there and physically tried to change the regime.
Here is what Jones said on February 14:
we know that internally there is a very serious problem [in Iran]…we’re about to add to that regime’s difficulties by engineering, participating in very tough sanctions, which we support. Not mild sanctions. These are very tough sanctions. A combination of [internal and external problems] could well trigger a regime change.
While there may be broad international support for the notion that in a perfect world Iran would not acquire nuclear weapons, there is not broad international support for serious sanctions, and there is certainly not broad international support for “regime change.”
Given that Gates acknowledges the importance of a unified international policy, it is difficult to understand why he is leading the administration down the fruitless path of additional sanctions.
– Ben Katcher
.
Fiorangela Leone
Interesting link
“The Israel lobby further developed the ethos that “no crime for Israel would be punished in the US” when it allegedly stole and smuggled US weapons grade uranium from NUMEC, “an Israeli operation from the beginning” according to CIA Tel Aviv station chief John Hadden.
A secret nuclear arsenal would allow Israel to initiate “The Samson Option” pulling down the entire world if it were ever threatened — a capability judged worth all the stealing and law breaking.”
Why has the US been willing to set aside its own interests in order to advance the interests of Israel and its criminal leaders?
.
.
kooshey, enjoy your Friday night. When you return, please — what DO you regard as the “main component” driving US foreign policy toward Iran? The video linked in my earlier comment identifies forthrightly the forces that brought the first set of sanctions into being, and that they harmed US interests.
and
“Israel’s Lobby Imposes Crippling Sanctions on America — Again”
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/9602
Fiorangela
I agree with your analysis with regards to sanctions, but what I don’t completely agree with is some of the views and comments with regards to ” certain forces are intent on shutting Iran out of, in preference for funneling wealth to the Mediterranean Levant”. I believe that the forces you refer to are one of the components of the FP toward Iran and rather not the main component. Which I do not think you and me should mess-up a Good Friday night on that.
Cheers
Fiorangela,
“[D]oes destabilizing Iran promote a sense of well-being among the Arab states such that they feel no need to increase their acquisition of weaponry … [?]”
Quite the opposite, of course, which is good for arms suppliers.
kooshy, yes, that’s an important point, an extraordinary point, in fact, that the West has not at all recognized.
But the author of this article took account of it and cautioned Iran’s leaders against overconfidence when he wrote:
“Although an aggressive diplomacy may have a number of advantages and show our degree of INDEPENDENCE, we could never overlook its adverse effect on economic opportunities and investment. ”
he hammered home the point that the west is in a downward spiral; Iran stands technologically ready and able to absorb the investments that will NOT be headed west,** BUT, sanctions are shutting Iran out of that rich market.
** Yesterday A Forbes magazine reporter spoke of the new list of billionaires. The US declined in the number of billionaires, while Asian states increased their numbers of billionaires. More importantly, billionaires from every region of the world made their billions in this past year NOT by investing in the US but by investing in Asia and Latin America. That is the market and investment potential that Iran is technologically prepared to absorb, but certain forces are intent on shutting Iran out of, in preference for funneling wealth to the Mediterranean Levant.
Fiorangela
In my previous comment, I agreed that the sanctions were impose to curb Iran’s development. There is no doubt in my mind about that, however my point that is not mentioned on the ID article is, these same sanction regimes also have distanced the gap between Iran and the west not only economically but also politically and even more important, culturally.
With regard to the effect of sanctions on the Iranian society, I like to raise a point that the westerners might have not noticed yet. That is, that the sanctions in a way have revived a sense of technological self-confidence, which diminished since the Iran – Russia, wars of 1800’s. Clearly, this newly found technological/scientific self-confidence is on display on every day basis in all levels of the Iranian society.
kooshy — interesting commentary on irandiplomacy website: http://irdiplomacy.ir/index.php?Lang=en&Page=21&TypeId=12&ArticleId=7165&BranchId=43&Action=ArticleBodyView
“How Sanctions Affect Iran’s Development”
the author, who seems to be talking to Iran’s decision makers, cautions that simplistic judgments should be avoided: sanctions have not been totally without impact; sanctions have not crippled Iran. He mentions only briefly your point, Kooshy, that the West needs Iran as much as Iran needs to be part of the global economic system in order for both to thrive.
“Bypassing sanctions is not a mystery for any country, but in a world with permanent competition over progress and development, the impeding quality of sanctions is remarkable. They can severe our connections with key global processes as we can already see how fiscal and technological sanctions have caused problems for our country in import and export.
Although an aggressive diplomacy may have a number of advantages and show our degree of independence, we could never overlook its adverse effect on economic opportunities and investment. Economic crisis is in its final days in Western countries. While reinvestment and revival of some industries appear as arduous tasks, Iran as a country were investment is highly profitable has the best opportunity to absorb wandering capital into its economy and gain a bigger share of the global market.
At this point, aggressive policies may have propagandistic merits for us, but they will definitely push our country away from a giant economic leap. For a country like Iran which is trying to implement transformative economic plans and is in need of global technology and capital that would be a great loss.
Sanctions will deprive Iran from seizing global opportunities. This blunder may not undermine the position of administration, but its long-term effects will inflict the Iranian society and its development.”
I agree with Laysender, sanctions were impose from day one to curb Iran’s economic developments for various reasons, which we have discussed here before.
However, it is also correct that the 30 years of sanctions have not realistically achieved their goals, in the process, this sanctions imposed on Iran by the western countries have made the political, economical and cultural gap between Iran and the west wider and more apart on all levels, yes even cultural, to the benefit of the Asian countries. A European diplomat mentioned that this increased gap is an unrecoverable loss for the west that will take generations to restore again.
I remember during the Rafsanjain’s term there were discussions circling regarding, to look to the east ( Negaheh be Shargh) this was around the time which US was trying to isolate China because of the T square.
The real reason is that historically Iran has been a major crossroad of cultural and economic trade in-between the east and west, and the north and south. How they can be isolated by just passing some none sense UN resolutions? How many political, economical, and cultural gains to the benefit of the west do we see with the current four UN resolutions in last 3 years?
@Lysander: “I think the point of sanctions are to impede Iran’s economic development as much as possible and to maximize its political isolation.”
Agreed, Lysander.
The crucial question that USofAian leaders avoid or obfuscate is: TO WHAT END? What good outcome for USofAians is projected or expected from “impeding Iran” economically and “maximizing its political isolation?”
Do our wise leaders NOT know, but proceed with unwise policy without that clear and honest knowledge, or are they aware that the results of sanctions on Iran will be harmful for USofAians but proceed with that policy choice anyway?
In a conference in Seattle, Washington in December, 2009, former AIPAC operative Keith Weissman stated that he helped write the legislation in 1995 that sanctioned Iran. In a video accessible here: http://www.edmaysproductions.net/webvideo/irannuke.wmv Weissman said:
~the sanctions were put into place at the behest of AIPAC
~the 1995 and 1996 sanctions were written by AIPAC
~the sanctions harmed USofAian economic interests
~unilateral sanctions have never been effective in achieving foreign policy goals
~sanctions at this time will, similarly, not be effective
Secretary Gates has no excuse for not being aware of these facts.
I think the point of sanctions are to impede Iran’s economic development as much as possible and to maximize its political isolation. Success or failure need to be measured on that basis. I suspect Iran will manage to grow and maintain good relations with numerous countries despite the sanctions, but certainly not as well as if they were all gone.
I think Gates and Mullen know that there really isn’t anything they can do about the N program.
The University of Pittsburgh school of public affairs defines as the goal of its program, “helping students develop the ability to DEFINE a problem, develop solution options, analyze the alternatives, and make decisions.”
The process starts with Defining the Problem.
I have never seen a clear and honest definition of the “problem” that Iran poses to the people of the United States. Pettifogged attempts at checking off that step usually include allusions to “…and defend American interests and allies in the region.”
What ARE those interests, and who are the allies who are so in need of USofAian policy prostitution? Spell it out in terms that even a master’s degree student can understand.
When you do, please explain how destabilizing a nation of 70million people contributes to the betterment of the USofAian situation in the world:
~does destabilizing Iran ensure that the USofA and the rest of the world will be able to acquire the petroleum resources needed to sustain the world’s economies?
~does destabilizing Iran contribute to the goal of reducing the presence of US military forces and assets in the region?
~does destabilizing Iran promote a sense of well-being among the Arab states such that they feel no need to increase their acquisition of weaponry and commit energy and effort to militarizing their societies, rather than concentrate on extending democratic rights to larger segments of their populations?
~does destabilizing Iran comport with USofAian national, Constitutional, and moral values?