Sanctions and the Iranian Nuclear Program
Nancy Pelosi spoke at the Knesset yesterday. Here’s what she had to say about Iran:
And together, we must have a simple message for Tehran, whose support of Hezbollah is well known. Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. The time to leverage all our power is now, and the way to do it is through diplomacy – with stronger sanctions and smarter policy choices.Under Chairman Tom Lantos’ leadership, the U.S. Congress is moving to put additional pressure on Iran by expanding and tightening our sanctions regime. I am certain that our Administration will use all of its influence with Security Council members and states in the region to see that they do the same.
Iran is not just an Israeli problem or a regional problem. Iran is a problem for the world.
I do agree with Pelosi here on a very basic level. That is, she’s right when she says that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon and that diplomacy is the best way to achieve this outcome. The thing is, however, Pelosi and other policymakers really need to think outside the box a little bit more when it comes to Iran.
There are a whole range of different diplomatic carrots and sticks that might need to be used here – expulsion from international organizations, a boycott of Iranian oil, a Nixon-like visit by Western leaders to Tehran, or the negotiated construction of CANDU nuclear reactors. Who knows? There are many different ways that we could end this standoff. Sanctions are not necessarily the magic bullet here.
9 Responses to “Sanctions and the Iranian Nuclear Program”
Well, I’d say a boycott of Iranian oil is not feasible now or in the near future.
I certainly support efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. However, despite our best efforts I fear it’s inevitable.
So, while continuing our efforts to prevent their proliferation, we should also be considering how we’ll deal with a nuclear armed Iran.
You didn’t really expect Pelosi to solve the entire problem of Iran during one speech, did you?
Thinking ‘outside the box’ requires a lot more than speechmaking during a fast paced tour of many countries.
Given that religious fanatics rarely stay inside the box more rational people draw for them and that we cannot count on the Iranian central government to be able to control their more fanatical brethren one should be cautious in saying what might or might not work.
Jeb:
I’d like to first point out that Pelosi ought to consult a dictionary. nowhere in the definition of diplomacy is there mention of sanctions. in fact, since sanctions are intended to coerce, imposing sanctions is an acknowledgement that diplomacy has failed, as diplomacy is defined in part as “handling people, etc., so that there is little or no ill will’. In Pelosi-speak, diplomacy simply means everything not involving military action.
Moving along, notwithstanding your claim that “sanctions are not necessarily the magic bullet here’, a number of your choices – expulsion from international organizations and a boycott of Iranian oil – sure seem sanction-like.
As much as I applaud your desire (while finding it dangerously naive in this situation) to find a way of keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons without having to (1) use military force or (2) be mean to them by doing to them things they don’t like, I have a hard time believing that the little trinkets and offerings you’re proposing to throw their way would be sufficient for them to give up their dreams of (1) getting a nuclear weapon and (2) using it, one way or the other, against their enemies. At the risk of sounding like one of those nuts who want to bomb everybody who we don’t like, I think Iran’s leaders are sufficiently motivated that nothing short of a full economic embargo will make them give up. Heck, I wonder if even that would work… but since our ‘allies’ won’t ever agree to such, this is a moot point and gets me back to the position I’ve had for a couple of years now: there is nothing that we can or should do short of military action that will result in Iran giving up its nuclear ambitions. And since we all agree (except for Davebo?) that Iran with nukes is a no-no, then why are we wasting time and giving Iran more time to further their programs along?
We’re probably nearing the end of the application of new sanctions rather than the beginning. One yardstick for this is the tepid statement passed by the UNSC on Iran’s seizure and detention of British service personnel. The original wording, “deplore” was replaced by “are gravely concerned about”, etc. That doesn’t suggest that new, more robust sanctions from the UNSC against Iran are in the offing. And no sanctions that don’t have the concurrence of the Russians and Chinese are worth a damn.
Well, I’m not aware of too many other areas where the US can apply sanctions, so new ones will require diplomacy to convince others to apply sanctions. Naturally, their biggest trading partners are some familiar actors:
By exports:
Japan 16.9%, China 11.2%, Italy 6%, South Korea 5.8%, Turkey 5.7%, Netherlands 4.6%, France 4.4%, South Africa 4.1%, Taiwan 4.1% (2005)
By imports:
Germany 13.9%, UAE 8.4%, China 8.3%, Italy 7.1%, France 6.3%, South Korea 5.4%, Russia 4.9% (2005)
As for the nuclear program, here’s what the head nuclear negotiator before Larijani said way back in 2004:
Emphasis added, btw
Non-nuclear nations (Iraq, Afghanistan) get attacked. Nuclear ones (North Korea) do not. Hell, I’d thumb my nose at the international community too. It’s survival in the GW Bush era of pre-emptive war.
Greendreams,
The Iraqi, Iranian, North Korean, Pakistani, and Indian nuclear programs all pre-date GWB by quite a length of time.