Drace
9th January 2010, 00:42
What does Revleft think?
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Article.aspx?id=4902
President Barack Obama tried his best to avoid it, but the moment has now arrived when he has no choice but to impose new sanctions on Iran. The challenge now is to find the formula that will prove effective in pressuring the regime without undermining Iranian protesters who have risked their lives to demand change.
Obama's commitment to use diplomacy in dealing with Iran became a cornerstone of the foreign policy approach (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16843353) he constructed during his presidential campaign. He vowed to use fair-minded negotiations, a respectful tone, and reasonable arguments to convince the Islamic Republic to stop enriching uranium in violation of United Nations resolutions. To those who dismissed his efforts as naïve, claiming Iran would simply run the clock and get closer to nuclear weapons production while Washington talked, he promised (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE54H4QX20090518) he would stick by a strict deadline. With the start of 2010, that deadline has now passed.
The potential perils of imposing economic sanctions have become increasingly apparent in the months since Obama declared that, at the end of 2009, he would judge whether or not progress has been achieved on Iran's nuclear program -- which the U.S. and its allies are convinced aims to produce nuclear weapons.
Sanctions have often proved problematic, even counterproductive. In the case of Iran, there has always been a danger that imposing them would strengthen, rather than weaken the regime. Strong economic sanctions of the kind originally envisioned for Iran risk making life difficult for the general public, even as regime insiders manage to circumvent all restrictions and even profiteer from trading in scarce commodities.
Sanctions could also offer the regime an excuse for cracking down even more harshly on protesters, who may be seen by some as supporting the outside powers squeezing the country.
When Iran exploded in a spasm of anti-regime anger following last June's presidential elections, the White House found itself on the piercing horns of a terrible dilemma. What had always been a complicated problem suddenly looked much more difficult. Washington and its allies had been negotiating with the regime. Now the people of Iran had gone to the streets, braving violent repression, to declare that their government was illegitimate. The very act of negotiating with that government seemed to undermine the protests. Obama seemed to downplay the regime's brutality, fearing that siding too forcefully with the protesters would undermine the chances of success on nuclear negotiations.
Negotiations have so far failed miserably, with Iran dismissing and ignoring deadlines (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-ignores-deadline-and-takes-nuclear-talks-to-brink-1808408.html) on Western proposals. A plan to have Iran ship much of its low-enriched uranium out of the country in exchange for more highly enriched material -- the kind Iran needs for an experimental medical reactor -- was rejected by Tehran after allowing the September deadline to expire without comment.
As the year-end deadline for unspecified "progress" approached, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=114409§ionid=351020104) the time limit, calling it "the end of the Christian year" and telling a crowd of supporters in the city of Shiraz that the international community can give Iran "as many deadlines as they want, we don't care." A White House spokesman responded, "Mr. Ahmadinejad may not recognize, for whatever reason, the deadline that looms, but that is a very real deadline for the international community." Once again, the White House put its credibility on the line. The time for sanctions has arrived.
To avoid causing more harm than good, the U.S. and its allies have adjusted their approach to sanctions. In doing so, they may have found a way to break out of the dilemma of how to enact them while simultaneously supporting the anti-government forces.
Rather than imposing far-reaching, broadly based sanctions, Washington is moving toward more targeted objectives. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently indicated (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/-Clinton-Iran-Showing-Mounting-Signs-of-Ruthless-Repression-80693947.html), the U.S. wants to avoid hurting the people now being victimized by what she called "ruthless repression."
The strong language itself marks a subtle but noticeable departure for the administration. Even while on vacation in Hawaii, Obama took time to lambast government violence (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/politics/Western-Nations-Condemn-Crackdown-on-Iranian-Protesters-80204842.html) against protesters, declaring that "the decision of Iran's leaders to govern through fear and tyranny will not succeed."
The plan now is to target sanctions directly against the people and organizations carrying out the repression. Among others, that means going after the increasingly powerful Revolutionary Guards and their affiliated, highly lucrative, businesses.
If it works, the tactic could solve the dilemma of how to seek change in Iran's nuclear program without forsaking the pro-reform movement.
It is unclear if the targeted sanctions will work. And nobody is watching the unfolding events more closely than the Israelis. Israel has advocated what it calls "crippling sanctions." Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador in Washington, reiterated the need to impose strong measures. Still, Israel is saying over and over that it stands shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. on this issue. According to Oren, "There isn't an Israeli view and an American view." There is "one view."
That appears to be the official mantra. The way Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev put it (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1199964905158&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter), Israel and the U.S. are "on the same page" when it comes to Iran.
It seems clear that Israel wants to see the Obama administration take the next step, and it wants to support Washington's efforts to enlist as much international support as possible. Sanctions will likely come unilaterally from the U.S., as well as from America's European allies. In addition, Washington, Paris, London and Berlin will push for U.N.-approved sanctions. The final verdict on sanctions from Security Council veto holders China and Russia remains elusive.
Iran has called Obama's bluff. The stand-off between Iran and the West is about to enter a new chapter. Now Obama has to demonstrate he was not bluffing. This is a moment the administration did not want, an enormously challenging one. But it pales in comparison to the choices Barack Obama will face if this push to derail Iran's nuclear program also ends in failure.
Frida Ghitis is an independent commentator on world affairs and a World Politics Review contributing editor. Her weekly column, World Citizen (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/worldcitizen), appears every Thursday.
Photo: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad touring Iran's uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, Iran, 2008 (Photo by the Web site of the president of Iran).
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/Article.aspx?id=4902
President Barack Obama tried his best to avoid it, but the moment has now arrived when he has no choice but to impose new sanctions on Iran. The challenge now is to find the formula that will prove effective in pressuring the regime without undermining Iranian protesters who have risked their lives to demand change.
Obama's commitment to use diplomacy in dealing with Iran became a cornerstone of the foreign policy approach (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16843353) he constructed during his presidential campaign. He vowed to use fair-minded negotiations, a respectful tone, and reasonable arguments to convince the Islamic Republic to stop enriching uranium in violation of United Nations resolutions. To those who dismissed his efforts as naïve, claiming Iran would simply run the clock and get closer to nuclear weapons production while Washington talked, he promised (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE54H4QX20090518) he would stick by a strict deadline. With the start of 2010, that deadline has now passed.
The potential perils of imposing economic sanctions have become increasingly apparent in the months since Obama declared that, at the end of 2009, he would judge whether or not progress has been achieved on Iran's nuclear program -- which the U.S. and its allies are convinced aims to produce nuclear weapons.
Sanctions have often proved problematic, even counterproductive. In the case of Iran, there has always been a danger that imposing them would strengthen, rather than weaken the regime. Strong economic sanctions of the kind originally envisioned for Iran risk making life difficult for the general public, even as regime insiders manage to circumvent all restrictions and even profiteer from trading in scarce commodities.
Sanctions could also offer the regime an excuse for cracking down even more harshly on protesters, who may be seen by some as supporting the outside powers squeezing the country.
When Iran exploded in a spasm of anti-regime anger following last June's presidential elections, the White House found itself on the piercing horns of a terrible dilemma. What had always been a complicated problem suddenly looked much more difficult. Washington and its allies had been negotiating with the regime. Now the people of Iran had gone to the streets, braving violent repression, to declare that their government was illegitimate. The very act of negotiating with that government seemed to undermine the protests. Obama seemed to downplay the regime's brutality, fearing that siding too forcefully with the protesters would undermine the chances of success on nuclear negotiations.
Negotiations have so far failed miserably, with Iran dismissing and ignoring deadlines (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-ignores-deadline-and-takes-nuclear-talks-to-brink-1808408.html) on Western proposals. A plan to have Iran ship much of its low-enriched uranium out of the country in exchange for more highly enriched material -- the kind Iran needs for an experimental medical reactor -- was rejected by Tehran after allowing the September deadline to expire without comment.
As the year-end deadline for unspecified "progress" approached, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=114409§ionid=351020104) the time limit, calling it "the end of the Christian year" and telling a crowd of supporters in the city of Shiraz that the international community can give Iran "as many deadlines as they want, we don't care." A White House spokesman responded, "Mr. Ahmadinejad may not recognize, for whatever reason, the deadline that looms, but that is a very real deadline for the international community." Once again, the White House put its credibility on the line. The time for sanctions has arrived.
To avoid causing more harm than good, the U.S. and its allies have adjusted their approach to sanctions. In doing so, they may have found a way to break out of the dilemma of how to enact them while simultaneously supporting the anti-government forces.
Rather than imposing far-reaching, broadly based sanctions, Washington is moving toward more targeted objectives. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently indicated (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/-Clinton-Iran-Showing-Mounting-Signs-of-Ruthless-Repression-80693947.html), the U.S. wants to avoid hurting the people now being victimized by what she called "ruthless repression."
The strong language itself marks a subtle but noticeable departure for the administration. Even while on vacation in Hawaii, Obama took time to lambast government violence (http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/politics/Western-Nations-Condemn-Crackdown-on-Iranian-Protesters-80204842.html) against protesters, declaring that "the decision of Iran's leaders to govern through fear and tyranny will not succeed."
The plan now is to target sanctions directly against the people and organizations carrying out the repression. Among others, that means going after the increasingly powerful Revolutionary Guards and their affiliated, highly lucrative, businesses.
If it works, the tactic could solve the dilemma of how to seek change in Iran's nuclear program without forsaking the pro-reform movement.
It is unclear if the targeted sanctions will work. And nobody is watching the unfolding events more closely than the Israelis. Israel has advocated what it calls "crippling sanctions." Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador in Washington, reiterated the need to impose strong measures. Still, Israel is saying over and over that it stands shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. on this issue. According to Oren, "There isn't an Israeli view and an American view." There is "one view."
That appears to be the official mantra. The way Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev put it (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1199964905158&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter), Israel and the U.S. are "on the same page" when it comes to Iran.
It seems clear that Israel wants to see the Obama administration take the next step, and it wants to support Washington's efforts to enlist as much international support as possible. Sanctions will likely come unilaterally from the U.S., as well as from America's European allies. In addition, Washington, Paris, London and Berlin will push for U.N.-approved sanctions. The final verdict on sanctions from Security Council veto holders China and Russia remains elusive.
Iran has called Obama's bluff. The stand-off between Iran and the West is about to enter a new chapter. Now Obama has to demonstrate he was not bluffing. This is a moment the administration did not want, an enormously challenging one. But it pales in comparison to the choices Barack Obama will face if this push to derail Iran's nuclear program also ends in failure.
Frida Ghitis is an independent commentator on world affairs and a World Politics Review contributing editor. Her weekly column, World Citizen (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/worldcitizen), appears every Thursday.
Photo: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad touring Iran's uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, Iran, 2008 (Photo by the Web site of the president of Iran).