Obama Offers Iran Bigger Carrots, but the Sticks Remain Puny
President Obama offered a "new day" in America's relationship with Iran via a videotaped message yesterday appealing directly to Iranians. Mr. Obama added a warning to Iran's leaders that this would not be achieved by "terror or arms, but rather though peaceful actions."
While many welcome this new strategy -- bigger carrots, we must set the record straight on the sticks of the old policy: They've always been puny; there has never been a tough sanctions policy toward Iran.
As far back as the US embassy hostage crisis of 1979-81, President Carter was unable to convince America's closest NATO allies and Japan to participate in economic sanctions against Iran. Not even England was willing to cut off trade with Iran during that crisis.
The US has had to go it alone on Iran for decades. But America's unilateral sanctions against Iran have been limited, never broad and far-reaching.
Though the State Department labeled Iran the world's "most active" sponsor of terrorism, the ayatollahs have not been forced to pay a significant price. Iran has armed and aided our enemies--including Al Qaeda--and threatened our allies, and has gotten away with it.
The two most recent administrations, Clinton and Bush II, didn't even bother to enforce our own sanctions against Iran, opting to issue waivers to every foreign oil company that ran afoul of the Iran Sanctions Act, legislation Congress passed without opposition in 1996. Moreover, America has allowed our own corporations to bypass US sanctions laws by using foreign cut-outs and subsidiaries to do business with the ayatollahs. In fact, during the Bush administration, US trade with Iran actually increased tenfold, from $8.3 million in 2001 to $146 million in 2007.
Companies like GE and Hewlett-Packard only ceased such activity after the news media scrutinized their "end around" operations with the Iranians. Unfortunately, other US companies, such as Halliburton and Foster Wheeler, continue to do business with Iran, and multinational firms such as Siemens, Alcatel-Lucent and Nokia even provide Iran with advanced communications technology.
Sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council have been limited only to certain aspects of nuclear technology and arms, with virtually no impact on the Iranian economy. Even these limited sanctions have no teeth, which is why Iran's largest arms suppliers, Russia and China, allowed them to pass.
These unilateral and multilateral sanctions have put scant economic pressure on Tehran. Iran is in trouble economically now, but that is due mostly to the recent collapse of oil prices.
Tough economic sanctions that are enforced offer a peaceful means of addressing Iran's nuclear program and its sponsorship of terrorism. This is what nearly everyone claims to want. So why have meaningful measures never been taken to pressure Iran?
It is especially critical that America and the West apply economic leverage on Iran right now, when Iran's economy is hurting, leaving its leaders vulnerable to an effective sanctions regime. Talk alone is unlikely to produce results; it must be accompanied by pressure that will convince Iran's leaders it is in their interest to halt their nuclear weapons program and support of terrorist groups.
Iran's economic desperation was recently illustrated in stark terms when its central bank approved the issue of interest-bearing debentures on the international markets. This action directly violates the Shariah law, a comprehensive body of laws governing all aspects of Islamic society, by which the ayatollahs rule.
Such an unprecedented move had to have come with the blessing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran and an authority on Shariah. Something forced his hand -- Iran's weak financial condition.
If truly comprehensive and tough economic sanctions were imposed on Iran now--for the very first time-- its leaders might very well be forced to negotiate with the West on issues such as its nuclear program and support for Jihadist terrorism.
Given that the ayatollahs are now willing to overlook Shariah in an effort to keep their economy afloat, they may be willing to deal with the West if it looks as if their economy - and their rule -- are about to be weakened by truly tough sanctions.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Yeah, good luck with that 'Bigger Stick' approach. What do you propose, seriously? More watertight economic sanctions? For a start that will never happen. America and Europe may clamp down. So Iran will turn to Russia( I mean, who do you think is building their nuclear reactors?). Even if Russia turned them down, they would go to China. Then Japan. Central Asia. It would leak like a sieve, and we would be back to square one within a year, only with an even more hostile Iran.
Move the Sixth Fleet to their doorstep? Tried that. Failed.
The only way forward I can see is whats happening now:the same way China eventually abandoned their true Communist Principles: increased exposure to Western consumerism and attitudes. Its a slow process, and will take decades, and will lead to much think-tank teeth-gnashing. But play the long game, for a change. Unless Iran directly attacks us, do not attack them.
You've got it nearly correct. When you connect the dots, western consumerism ultimately is responsible for the downturn in the global economy, and most certainly is the primary culprit in wasted global resources.
The only long-term solution is drastically reduced fossil fuel consumption, and in turn, an exit from Middle Eastern affairs. Eventually, the realities of this planet's slow demise will force even China and Russia to see the truth.
You are correct, sir. 'Consumerism' was a bit crass, and quite frankly, incorrect. I agree about the reduction in fossil fuel useage - though would be wary of the short-term breakdown in their societies, and the increased radicalism that may lead to. It could be treated as an opportunity, but would have to be carefully managed.
We will need some huge breakthroughs in technology and diplomacy (ie Israel) to be able to exit the Middle East with any confidence, but I am an optimist. Its all you can be in the current economic context! Thanks for your reply.
that word "forced" is all your Americans know Christopher!, why should Iran be forced to change on anything with sactions or anything else?,
You see a threat where as i see a sovereign country protecting it's right to Nuclear power under the NPT that they signed. Has Israel signed the NPT? no, so why do the likes of you continue to turn a blind eye to the country that has NW's and has aquired them illegally and is a real threat to peace in the region?
I wonder if I'm the only one who thinks that Israel is a great distraction for leaders in the muslim world?
Hey dobberdoss, I'm an American and I support diplomacy and a non-interventionist foreign policy and I'm not alone by any stretch of the imagination. Be careful with that broad brush
nice to hear but you and I are in the minority and you know that
Why is the HuffPo an echo chamber for Frank Gaffney and his neocon think tank,
The Center For Security Policy?
"Christopher Holton is an analyst with a major national security think tank and a freelance marketing consultant. From 1990-2003, he was with Blanchard and Company, serving as Marketing Director, Vice President of Marketing and President"
http://www.blanchardonline.com/
So how does being a gold speculator qualify you to make statements like "The CIA says they are 5 years away. Pay no attention. The CIA has been saying that since 1994. The CIA has no clue. Private intelligence services and Israel's Mossad both maintain that the Iranians are much closer than the CIA admits."?
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/holton061606.html
Now gold speculators wouldn't be interested in stirring up conflict between the USA and Iran by trying to impose tougher sanctions would they?
Sanctions my ar_e. Here's the long-term (over-simplified) solution: spend our wasted billions (oil-related) on new technology at home and get out of the Middle East.
End of the Iran controversy.
"But America's unilateral sanctions against Iran have been limited, never broad and far-reaching."
And your point is??
" Iran has armed and aided our enemies--including Al Qaeda"
Up to this point I was willing to take you seriously, but since the Sunni al Qaeda and the Shiite Iranians hate each otherl, you just lost all credibility. As you must know, the Iranians have jailed al Qaeda members caught fleeing Afghanistan and they were instrumental in helping the US in the initial invasion of Afghanistan.
"will convince Iran's leaders it is in their interest to halt their nuclear weapons program "
Why, other than being part of the AIPAC propaganda machine, do you think that Iran actually has a functioning atomic weapons program? Even the CIA doesn't think so.
Why, except sharing the Cheney love of beating up on people weaker than you, do you think that sanctions do anything but get people's backs up? How well have sanctions done in Cuba? How about North Korea? Why is it that nothing happened in North Korea until we stopped being obnoxious and decided to talk without preconditions? If someone sanctioned you by doing something you considered unfair and unjustified, would you meekly acquiesce? So why do you think anyone else would? If you want to solidify the hardline base in Iran behind the mullahs, then go ahead and attack the common people by making their lives miserable. That isn't what you are trying to do, is it?
I have a suspicion that his group represents those who would profit by additional sanctions on Iran. These "policy" groups and centers and organizations with generic official-sounding names are a dime a dozen, and exist for the purpose of being the smoke and mirrors necessary for someone else to claim that, "Look, that policy center says this or that! We must believe them because they have a serious sounding name! And by golly, we happen to agree with them!" when all along, the policy center is supported by the same groups that use their reports.
It's just that in this case, the argument was so poorly composed, so amateurish, that one cannot help but to see the obvious attempt at deception.
You make a reasoned argument. This Longhorn concurs with your conclusion that sanctions will not work. The other post by Bronfman advocates cutting off their refined gas supply. More threats will not work. Not to mention, cutting off the oil supply to the Japanese just before WWII was the reason they gave for attacking Pearl Harbor. They considered it an attack against the Japanese. Sanctions just seem to breed more hatred and violence when you look at history, let alone the suffering of lower income, innocents.
Since no one has really given diplomacy a sincere try, I think Obama deserves some time to see if Hillary can work a deal out before we fall back on the failed policies of the past.
And for god sakes let's get off the oil teet. If we had followed Carter's policies (I think he was a mediocre president at best) back in the 80's, we would be off foreign oil or at least much closer to that goal than we are now. Boy, Brazil looks awfully smart right now.
By the way, you might want to ease up on them there $10 words, like acquiesce. Being an Aggie, you wouldn't want to hurt yourself. Just teasing. Gig 'em!
Wow after reading the majority of comments about the mullahs and Iran here I'm pulling my money out of GE and Walmart and investing it all in blinders, seems thiers a huge untapped market out there.
After twenty years of softening up Iraq with sanctions, no-fly zones, and the like, we STILL couldn't win there. The British and the Soviets couldn't win in Afghanistan, and the US is losing there, too.
So, even after completely blowing it on two wars, the US STILL thinks it can intimidate the Iranians? They're laughing at us.
Since it's the U.S. of A that's terrorizing Iran, how's about the United Nations sanctioning America until America changes its ways? Another sanction could be ending the dollar's reign as the international currency. Oops, apparently the latter "stick" is about to be wielded.
The reason nobody will join us in sanctioning Iran is nobody else is that stupid. The war profiteers are worse than the banksters. Enough already of stupid imperial adventures that impoverish the working class and get people killed just to line the pockets of whoever it is this guy Holton is working for.
Kudos to the majority of comments here that show this post to be jingoistic, sophomoric and shallow, not to mention deceptive in it's baseless accusations and entire premise. The long needed and sensible Obama initiative was met with expected and justified skepticism, but also with promise from Iran’s leaders. The response from the Iranian street was much more positive. We have much to learn, teach and share with the Iranian people. We do indeed need more than empty words to counteract decades of hostility toward Iran and the entire ME in favor of pro-Israeli extremist attitudes and policy. We just last week re-affirmed the sanctions on Iran, not a very confidence inspiring message. I believe this will build to a genuine rapprochement and the rebuilding of trust between our two nations.
Actually the US has been sanctioning Iran for decades, to Iran's benefit.
While unsanctioned countries like Saudi Arabia buy all of their goods, Iran had to learn how to make it themselves. Although difficult at first, it ultimately led Iran to have a self sufficient economy.
When viewing the sad state of America's "allies," Iranians view sanctions as a blessing in disguise.
People are struggling in Iran; there is no life there...
another appeal to the bottom half of the class.
iran is doing nothing illegal with its nuclear energy program under the provisions of the npt, the only nuclear country to sign the treaty in the region. russia has, with iranian agreement, offered to dispose of the nuclear waste the plant will produce to keep from a weapons program. the aeia will monitor the transfer to match it with output from the plant.
the only "terrorists" iran supports are those in opposition to israel's dreams of expansion outlined in netanyahu's "clean break" strategy. they do this to protect their own sphere of influence filling the vacuum the usa has created with its fawning support for all things israel.
iran is vitally important to the usa, as it is to japan, china, russia, europe and all the other industrialized nations. it is vitally important, therefore for the usa to regain its role as the fulcrum for political, economic and strategic balance in the region. this can only be accomplished with a close "friendly " relationship with iran.
Exactly so, Mutt. Well said!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95285396
Robert Baer on NPR. If I were going to listen to someone about Iran it
would be Robert Baer. 20 years in the CIA. No irons in fire.
I never thought I would see someone from Family Security Matters writing on HuffPost.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Family_Security_Matters
These days the "source" is more important than the message.
1. Most, if not all our allis have an embassies in Iran and are chomping at the bit to do more business with them.
2. This piece accuses Iran of pursueing nuclear weapons and failed (as usual) to use the word EVIDENCE.
3. Since there is no evidence that Iran has ever pursued nuclear weapons, the sanctions are illegal.
Iran has adhered to the NPT.
4. As I predicted yesterday, O bama's message to Iran would bring articles like this out of the woodwork.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
