Sanctions against Iran won't work

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is expected to issue its report today, which is going to confirm the fact that Iran hasn't and will not put an end to its nuclear program. The US and its European allies are expected to try to impose "targeted" sanctions on Iran; unfortunately pursuing such a course of action will not achieve the goal, which is to do everything possible to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. History shows that sanctions rarely achieved their stated objective especially when they are not followed by a large party of the world and especially when time is of the essence. The world is divided not only Iran not only because it is an oil-rich country but also because there are different opinions on how close Iran is to acquire nuclear and how to stop it. Russia and China are going to have to be convinced to follow the US on sanctions and it is going to be difficult for them to agree to them without some reassurances and compensation. More importantly, there is the overwhelming reality that Iran has the power to destabilize the Middle East as it shows with his strong support of Hezbollah and with its increasing influence in Iran. Can sanctions change that reality and more Iran less powerful? I don't think that they can. If sanctions couldn't make Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Gaddafi's Libya bend to the will of the United Nations, it isn't going to stop Ahmadinejad's Iran. The Iranian regime has framed the nuclear issue as one about the dignity and the grandeur of the Iranian nation, which deserves the respect of not only the United States, but of the world. Yielding, retreating now without gaining something in return would be a defeat for the Iranian regime that would stop the rise of Iran as the superpower of the Middle East, but also putting a shameful dent in the new Shia's revival. The only question with Iran is does the US bargain with the Devil or does it try to annihilate it even though pursuing such a strategy would be extremely dangerous and closely and may not even at the end work? There are no good choices.

Comments

[Ed Watters]

There are many options in dealing with Iran's nuclear aspirations. How accurately one rates them as 'good' or 'bad' depends on how objectively one analyzes the global geo-econo-political circumstances involved and, of course, what outcome is desired.

What motivates Iran's desire to become a nuclear power? If Iraq had a nuclear arsenal it is doubtful that they would have been invaded twice in the last 15 years. Self-preservation has to be thier chief motivation. Living in an oil-rich region, in a world dominated by a lone super-power that has announced and demonstrated that it will pre-emptively attack any country that may violate its interests, possessing a nuclear deterent is the best way of protecting your people and your nation's soveriegnty.

The US's ultimatums to No. Korea and Iran, refusing any formal negotiations, while at the same time ignoring other nations nuclear arsenals (So. Africa, India, Pakistan, Israel etc) suggests that the US's desired outcome is to permit only certain countries to possess nuclear weapons.

What country would want the legitimacy of thier possession of nuclear weapons to be decided by the lone super power that has invaded almost a dozen non-nuclear countries in the past half-century?

One desireable, reasonable outcome would be the middle east as a nuclear-free zone. Who could blame Iranian negotiators for insisting on linkage between thier pursuit of nuclear weapons and Israel's possession of same? All the anguish expressed by the US and its mainstream media about Iran providing arms to Hezbollah begs some questions:

Since when is a nation not allowed to supply material assistance to it's allies?

By what magnitude would the death and destruction of Lebanon have been increased if the Hez had not been able to defend Lebanon?

The most desireable outcome to any nation's quest to join the 'nuclear club' is the elimination of all nuclear weapons. The advanced members of the 'club' have no rational argument for keeping anyone else 'out'. Thier high-tech 'fail-safe' systems are an accident waiting to happen - an accident with unimaginable consequences.

The US has rendered the SALT treaties meaningless because thier nuclear weaponry is, along with a vast conventional capability, a useful advantage in achieving thier desired outcome: continued world domination. As the limitations of conventional forces become more and more evident (Israel's failure in Lebanon, the US's quagmire in Iraq) the temptation of using small, tactical nuclear weapons will grow, especially to countries that routinely show utter disregard for international laws of warfare.

[Kiki]

I just can't agree with you for two simple reasons. One, I believe that Iran getting nuclear weapons is a threat not only to the United States, but to our world. Two, I don't believe that it is possible to equate morally Hezbollah and Israel and the United States and Iran, but having said that doesn't mean that you don't bargain with the devil and that you don't do everything that you can to avid the worst from happening. It is important to say that, even though I still think that force cannot be the only option to fight Iran and Hezbollah, but thinking that they are not a threat is a mistake and that all they do is a reaction to what the United States does is a mistake even though it is obvious that wrong policies have consequences. Again Israel and Hezbollah and the fact that Hezbollah claims victory in spite of the fact that Lebanon was destroyed should you that and the fact that Israel is struggling with the way it fought the war also shows you that they are a country, which doesn't pursue destruction at any cost, but who seeks to protect itself. The question is how they do it and right now, they are trying to answer that question.

[Ed Watters]

Kiki:
I agree, a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to the US and the world. I also feel that all of the countries that currently possess these weapons are, uniformly, regardless of whatever moral esteem I have for them, a threat to the safety of the world. That's why I find it reprehensible that the US would so effectively sabotauge the SALT II
treaties.

I also agree that diplomacy is a preferable option (the ideal option really) in resolving the Iranian issue. Regarding moral
equivalency, sticking to just two of the nations that you mentioned above, I doubt that most Iranians would consider the US as being on par with them morally.

In the 1950s Iran had a predominantly secular parliament and a democratically elected leader named Mossadeq. Iran nationalized thier oil resources which angered the US. In response, the CIA began efforts to destabilize the Iranian goverment
which were ultimately successful, resulting in the Shah of Iran taking control. The Shah consolidated control of Iran in much the same way that Saddam Hussien did in Iraq: death squads, torture, severe controls on freedom of expression etc.

During the long and bloody war between Iran and Iraq, the US played both sides, thier cynical intent being to foment a long, savage war that would significantly weaken both sides.

No doubt, there are some in Iran who are apprehensive at the thought of bargaining with the US devil.

[Kiki]

Nobody is arguing that the United States has never made mistakes and that it is perfect country. No matter the mistakes that the United States have made, it is a country with great ideals, a great history, which has made great contributions to the world. Iran is also a great country, but unfortunately, it has a regime, which is dangerous to world peace because of its ideals. However, the central question isn't about which the better nation or about which country deserves to dominate the world or the middle east but about what is best for our world. The concept of bargaining with the devil isn't about pointing finger and basking in the glow of one's moral superiority, but it is rather about doing it what is necessary to avoid a confrontation that would have dangerous consequences for both sides and for the world.
Although there are no angels on the international political scene, there are still right and wrong. It is true that the United States has sometimes been on the wrong side of history, but that doesn't mean that it is always wrong and it can't be trusted. Many may argue that a theocracy regime like Iran has the right to have nuclear weapons, I don’t agree with that position.