Iran's announcement that it will enrich uranium to 20% U-235 mocks UN Security Council resolution 1835. As well as resolutions 1803, 1747, 1737, and 1696, all of which demanded over the past three and a half years that Iran stop enriching uranium.
When sanctions on Iran are next discussed at the U.N., the U.S. must break with the past practice of accepting resolutions with broad support but little bite. As President Obama said in his Nobel speech, "sanctions must exact a real price" and be "tough enough to actually change behavior." In the case of Iran, sanctions must target the regime's economic heart: Oil exports.
If international consensus cannot be achieved, unilateral American sanctions can still severely impact Iran's oil exports. Just as Congress has targeted exporters of gasoline to Iran, new legislation should sanction foreign oil companies, shipping companies, insurance providers, banks, oil traders and anyone else involved in purchasing, transporting, financing or refining Iranian oil.
These companies and any of their subsidiaries that continue their involvement with Iranian oil would find our banking system, capital markets, ports, insurance industry and commerce closed to them.
The Obama administration should make clear it will implement these sanctions and force anyone dealing in oil to choose between the U.S. and Iran.
Such sanctions need not disrupt global oil markets. Iranian exports supply only 3 percent of global demand, and Saudi Arabia can replace all of Iran's exports with only half of its spare production capacity. Worldwide, government-controlled strategic petroleum reserves are almost 1.5 billion barrels - more than 20 months' worth of Iranian exports. Private industry oil stocks add another 2.6 billion barrels, bringing total reserves to almost five years' worth of Iranian exports.
America must lead with such harsh sanctions because a nuclear-armed Iran poses a serious risk to our security. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's pledge to wipe Israel off the map is well known, but experts on Iran understand that the Iranian regime considers America, not Israel, its main adversary.
Ayatollah Ali Khameini, Iran's Supreme Leader, has said that conflict with America is "natural and unavoidable" and ascribes many of Iran's problems to sinister American plots. Chants of "Death to America" precede the chants of "Death to Israel" at regime-led rallies.
That Iranian missiles cannot yet reach America is irrelevant. If Iran were to attack the U.S. with a nuclear weapon, it would do so with maximum deniability to reduce the chance of retaliation. Intercontinental missiles have clear return addresses, unlike a nuclear bomb onboard a cargo ship that explodes in an American port. Even if Iran dared not attack the U.S., the nuclear proliferation in the Middle East provoked by an Iranian nuclear weapon capacity would increase the odds of a nuclear or radiological attack by Islamic terrorists.
As news reports from December made clear, the U.S. government appreciates this threat, yet we remain vulnerable. The New York Times reported on December 19 that the Obama administration is changing U.S. nuclear policy to focus on countering nuclear terrorism. One unnamed official called the threat of nuclear terrorism "the first - and in many ways the most urgent for where we are today." Just 17 days earlier, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a Senate committee that the government will need at least a two-year extension of the 2006 SAFE Ports Act deadline of 2012 to ensure that all U.S.-bound shipping containers from foreign ports are scanned for radiation.
Such scanning may not offer the necessary protection in any case. According to a 2009 Government Accountability Office report, officials in the Department of Homeland Security Domestic Nuclear Detection Office "acknowledge that both the new and current-generation portal monitors are capable of detecting certain nuclear materials only when unshielded or lightly shielded." The report also notes the testing standards did not reflect the kinds of shielding a terror operation would likely use.
Facing such threats, we should be prepared to take responsibility for ending Iran's nuclear weapons program. Europe worries about nuclear proliferation, but not about a nuclear attack on Berlin. Neither China nor Russia wants another nuclear power, yet both have substantial economic relations with Iran. Israel has been overtly threatened by Iran, but military analysts have questioned whether it has the firepower to eliminate Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
America has the economic and military power to counter Iran and is sufficiently threatened by Iran's nuclear weapons program to generate the political will to act.
The Iranian regime values its own survival - but not much else - more than its nuclear program, and its survival rests on two pillars: repression at home and oil revenue from abroad. As the Green Movement challenges the first, we should target the second.
An oil embargo is the toughest sanction available, short of military action, that could change the regime's cost-benefit analysis of its nuclear program. International backing would be welcome, but our bottom line, at the Security Council and domestically, should be the effectiveness of sanctions to end the Iranian nuclear program, not support for them by nations who feel less threatened.
Abraham H. Foxman is National Director of the Anti-Defamation League and author of "The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control."
Nehad Ismail: Air Strikes Against Iran Can Push the Price of Oil to $250 per Barrel
Let us work to make all the Middle-East a nuclear-free zone!
First it was Israel, then it will be Iran, then the Saudis (who won't just sit back and watch Iran becoming a nuclear power), then Egypt may want to join the club... Stop the madness!!!
Think about this when you vote, especially in the primaries.
1) Promote myths and misconceptions about Iran (no, the election wasn't rigged, it's not a dictatorship, the SL isn't supreme but answers to an elected body, Iranians support their government, their system, their way of life, and they don't hate Jews)
2) Ignore what the effects of the US policy have been (the creation of private sector skills that allow the government to source vital military items internally at reduced cost, the creation of a network for moving money without leaving a trail for the US, a sense of being under attack that rallies people to the government in spite of any mismanagement)
3) Promote the idea that the US policy enjoys broad support in the world at large (ignore that most of the world has come out in support of Iran's nuclear program, ignore that opposition to the US policy at the UNSC extends beyond China, ignore that the EU is promoting the idea of using a supporter of Iran's nuclear rights to play mediator)
4) Provide a steady diet of editorials and news stories that promote the US policy
Remember, one of the big causes of WW2 in Asia was the US preventing Japan from getting the oil it needed. I suspect that China will have a similar reaction to the US trying to shut off part of its oil supply. The difference is the US is a lot weaker militarily and financially than it was during WW2 and does not have the resources to build up to fight a war with China.
Now where did we put all that manufacturing capability? Oh yes, now I remember, we gave it all to China .
Now where will we get the money to fight a war? Of course, we will borrow it from ... China? Japan? Just who would finance our war with China? I suspect the Europeans and the Russians will sit this out.
When the ME oil fields are burning, exactly where will we get the fuel to run our war machine? Maybe we should invade Latin America to secure some oil before we start a war with China . I am sure the good people of Latin America will be just as friendly and helpful as the Iraqis were when we tried to steal their oil.
The bottom line is The US is stupid to play Israel's game. The best thing the US could do is GIVE Iran the nuclear fuel rod they need to power their reactors and to remove all sanctions and let the economy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/19/AR2009121902171.html
Blockade of Iran oil will end in war, everyone knows it. But I am always amazed at the level of coordination and efficiency of the war party.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1636330020100216?type=marketsNews
Also a quick check at http://www.eia.doe.gov you will see Iran produces almost 5% of the worlds oil.
This is a surprisingly good take on what the oil sanctions will do to our Iran situation by none other than one Pat Buchanan. Who knew he was such a staunch anti-neo-con. I sure didn't.
In my sons Honors English class they're spending the whole semester on the Holocaust, Genocide, Countries that promote hate and intolerance against some of their own people, as well as hate groups and intolerance here at home. I directed him to the ADL website if he truly wanted to know about hate speech and intolerance. After reading about the ADL and quotes from the leaders, he agreed it was a wise choice to use in their report. He added the Israeli government to his report as well.
I agree with your comments about Saudi Arabia, but I believe Iran poses a much greater threat. We should deal with the near threat first, by weakening the strangle hold of IRGC hardliners on the Iranian government and their mandate to conduct Jihad through out the world (stated in the IRI constitution, "Accordingly, the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps are to be organized in conformity with this goal, and they will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God's way; that is, extending the sovereignty of God's law throughout the world.")
By the way, can you provide a link to your assessment or is this just more Fox News foreign policy babble?
Currently the US does not buy oil from Iran (at least not directly - indirectly is another matter), so the US have no leverage.
China on the other hand buys 11% of its oil from Iran and will be very unfriendly if we try to mess with that.
One of the things that has been suggested is that Saudi Arabia would sell China enough oil to replace the Iranian oil. The only "slight"" problem is Saudi Arabia's oil fields are past peak and they have no capacity to make up for the loss of Iranian oil unless they short someone else (thereby driving the price of oi through the roof as every scrambles to get what they need).
The best thing the US could do now is give Iran lots of nuclear fuel rods and take all sanctions off and allow Iranian high-tech firms to thrive, thereby creating a bigger Iranian middle class.
It is long past time the US "got over" being humiliated over the Shah and let the Iranians live their lives as they want. If that means Israel suffers in the process, so be it.
Oil & Gas Companies Operating in Iran
The ABB Group (Germany)
BG Group (UK)
BHP Billiton (Australia)
Bow Valley (Canada)
BP Iranoil rig
Bureau Veritas (France)
CESPA (Spain)
Eni (Italy)
Gazprom (Russia)
Japex (Japan)
JOGMEC (Japan)
INPEX (Japan)
LG (Korea Republic)
Lukoil (Russia)
Lundin Petroleum AB (Sweden)
National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC)
National Iranian South Oil Company (NISOC)
Norsk Hydro (Norway)
Petro Canada
Petrom (Romania)
Petronas (Malaysia)
Respol (Spain)
Shell Iran
Statoil (Norway)
Totalfinaelf (France)
Ultramar (Canada)
http://www.parstimes.com/Ioil.html
Then there are the countries who import a majority of their oil from Iran, such as China.
Perhaps you need to think a little more before advocating a path some members of the security council will never agree to.