Sorry, Sanctions Will Not Do

In seeking ways to pressure Iran to stop enriching uranium and clear the air about its nuclear ambitions, adding tougher sanctions to those already in place is often mentioned. For instance, John McCain stated at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference last week that he favors imposing limits on Iranian imports of gasoline and a worldwide campaign to freeze Iranian assets. Barack Obama, speaking before the same body, said that he would pursue a similar policy if Iran remained uncooperative, stating that "If Iran fails to change course... we [will] insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council." Nancy Pelosi holds that: "Sanctions that are far-reaching and tough demonstrate to Iranian leaders that their behavior is recognized as a threat...."

Most recently, following a joint statement with the Bush administration on intensifying sanctions, Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that the European Union will freeze the overseas assets of Iran's largest commercial bank; he also stated that if Iran persists in defying existing United Nations resolutions, European leaders would begin considering further sanctions on investments in Iran's oil and natural gas industries.

It's easy to understand why politicians love sanctions. They sound tough. They're more than just talk but less than dreaded acts of war (which surely should only be considered -- if at all -- if all other means have been exhausted). Moreover, there are not many other arrows in the quiver of foreign policy.

But sanctions often do not work; indeed they often backfire, and they have some very undesirable side effects.

The United States isolated Castro's Cuba for four decades, banning trade with and travel to and from the island as well as exerting pressure on other nations to follow the same course. Containment of Cuba failed to grant its people more rights or to introduce democratic reforms. North Korea and Saddam's Iraq are two regimes which were long under sanctions but which persisted for decades.

In contrast, when China was still very much under totalitarian Communist rule in 1972, the United States decided to engage it in commerce, tourism, and more. It is far from a shining democracy, but it has become much more moderate since those days. The same holds true for Vietnam. The fifteen former Soviet Republics have changed even more, including on the political front, largely after the West engaged them instead of trying to isolate them through the use of sanctions.

The comprehensive sanctions imposed by the U.S. and others on Iraq in the 1990s failed to impress Saddam, who made out like a bandit due to the smuggling which various corrupt international players engaged in to circumvent the sanctions. At the same time the sanctions exacted a harsh price from the citizens of Iraq, leading to the deaths of many children, as access to needed supplies were limited.

True, the sanctions that have been imposed against Iran are different, more "graduated and targeted" than those that were imposed against Iraq in the 1990s. In the words of Matthew Levitt, director of the Stein Program on Terrorism, Intelligence, and Policy at the Washington Institute, "these are not your grandfather's sanctions." They are designed to exert coercive power only against "those elements of Iranian society specifically engaged in illicit conduct" rather than against the entire society.

But even when sanctions do have a bite, as they seemed to have had in the case of Libya, they take decades to have an effect and required almost universal support. It does not take a degree in rocket science or economics to realize that if the U.S. is imposing sanctions that many other nations are not adhering to, their main effect will be to deflect trade and other forms of business from the U.S. to other nations. Thus, the extensive U.S. sanctions on Iraq in the '90s failed, in part, because many of Iraq's neighbors (and several other nations) did not abide by them.

There is even less support for sanctions on Iran. Iran is laughing all the way to the bank, as the United States-imposed sanctions cost it much less than the extra revenue it is generating due to rising price of oil, and it is swimming in deals with Russia and in investments from China and India.

In short, sanctions may be good politics, but not good foreign policy. The dealings with Iran will have to follow the same path that Clinton followed and -- in its waning days -- that the Bush administration is following in their dealings with North Korea: offering to cease trying to overthrow the regime by the use of force if they will give up their nuclear arms ambitions and cease supporting terrorism. Such negotiations, one should not deny, are propelled forward by keeping all other options on the table, including the military one. And that is where that option best stay.

Amitai Etzioni is Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University and author of Security First (Yale, 2007) www.securityfirstbook.com email: [e-mail]

Comments

[Hass]

The Iranian people -- being a proud inheritors of an ancient and powerful nation which has substantially influenced world civilization -- won't allow Israel to dictate what technology Iran is "allowed" to have. You can sanction yourself blue but the bottom line is that Iranians love their country too. Deal with it.

[NABNYC]

Israel has nuclear weapons. In secret. They won't let anyone in to inspect their weapons. They won't let anyone in to determine what exactly they are developing as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons to be used against their neighbors.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. India does.

Why not Iran?

And if Iran does, why on earth would the U.S. care? Iran has never threatened the U.S. or threatened anyone in that region, as far as I know. I do know that Israel and the U.S. have been threatening to annihilate (Hillary channeling Ariel Sharon), to nuke, to destroy Iran, for years now, so it seems Iran should be free to develop any weapons it can to defend itself.

I've got an idea for everyone who claims they want peace: how about if Israel gives up its nuclear weapons, lets inspectors in to have complete access to the entire country. Once their nuclear, biological, chemical weapons are gone, then we can go after Iran.

Iran which, as an aside, has pretty much been confirmed does not have any nuclear weapons. So it's another instance of the Bush Regime beating the war drums to justify turning the U.S. military over to Israel to destroy all their neighbors. It's like rent-a-Marine, but no charge.

[jhNY]

Unless and until Israel's nuclear weapons are included in this anti-proliferation discussion, I'm going to believe that the discussions themselves are dishonest, in that certain facts (like the 150+ weapons Israel presently possesses) have been deliberately placed outside the bounds of discourse. Enough already.

[V4Vigilance]

If I were Iran, I'd tell the U.S. and it's allies that it will agree to any nuclear inspection regime that Israel agrees to also abide by.

Presumably this farce is being perpetrated in the name of Israeli security. That's fine, except that giving Israel a free pass to have a clandestine nuclear weapons program is a crock of sh*t. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

[research]

Here comes World War Iran!

Impeachment hearings are the ONLY way to stop the BushCo war mongers.

[cam]

Couldn't agree with you more - but the Europeans are probably hoping sanctions will undermine the case for war. There seems little doubt that Israel will take preemptive acition to halt Iranian nuclear weapons development and that there are very influential elements in America that would encourage air strikes against Iran.

Europe has little option but to support sanctions in the short term and hope that more rational and far-sighted elements in Israel, Iran and America will prevail in the long term.

[Lon]

The arguments made in this post are good ones (although strictly speaking Hussein was under sanctions only for one decade. He was our friend the previous decade plus of rule). The title and the opening tone are likely to get you a lot of criticism from people who think you are advocating the opposite of what you are actually arguing for though.

In general sanctions only work in the specific case in which there is a business class in the position to overthrow the government if they think the government with sanctions is more trouble than it is worth. That is why sanctions worked in South Africa and eventually in Serbia. But they do not work when the business class is decimated as happened in Cuba and Iraq. And they are not likely to work in Iran which has an oil economy that makes it somewhat sanction proof.

When sanctions fail they simply make the government more popular at the expense of the people employing the sanctions.

[dexxjones]

i have a better idea. why dont we fire pelosi kick mcain to the curb and tell israel to fight its own battles. how does that sound?