As the Obama administration struggles to devise a strategy for dealing with Iran's intransigence on the uranium enrichment issue, it appears to be gravitating toward the imposition of an international embargo on gasoline sales to that country. Such a ban would be enacted if Iranian officials fail to come up with an acceptable negotiating plan by the time the UN General Assembly meets in late September — the deadline given by the White House for a constructive Iranian move.
Iran, of course, is a major oil producer, pumping out some 4.3 million barrels per day in 2008. But it is also a major petroleum consumer. And its oil industry has a significant structural weakness: Its refinery capacity is too constricted to satisfy the nation's gasoline requirements. As a result, Iran must import about 40% of its refined products. Government officials are attempting to reduce this dependency through rationing and other measures, but the country remains highly vulnerable to any cutoff in gasoline imports.
Many in Washington view Iran's vulnerability as an opportunity to coerce the country into abandoning its nuclear-arms program. Although senior Iranian officials deny that they are seeking nuclear munitions, many Western analysts believe that the enrichment effort now under way at a huge centrifuge facility in Natanz is intended to produce highly enriched uranium for an eventual Iranian bomb. Despite massive pressure from the United States and the European Union, Tehran has refused to cease work at Natanz or to consider a slowdown there as part of a negotiating process. If Iran persists on this course, proponents of a gasoline embargo argue that sanctions should be the next step.
Many prominent figures in the United States and Israel favor not economic sanctions but military action if Tehran fails to cease its uranium enrichment. As such, the administration is looking to take a step that gives the impression of forceful action yet falls short of a risky military engagement. Cutting off gasoline deliveries to Iran, it is thought, could provide such an option. President Barack Obama himself touted the appeal of such a move in the final presidential debate, on October 15, 2008. "If we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need, and the refined petroleum products, that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis," he declared. "That starts putting the squeeze on them."
Obama has not expressed a similar view since taking office, but many around him are believed to favor this approach. Every action carries grave risks, Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) observed at a recent hearing on the topic, "[but] I firmly believe...that using economic pressure is far superior to the extreme alternatives of sanding idly by as Iran goes nuclear, or relying on a military strike, which could have grave consequences and should be contemplated only as a last resort."
If Iran fails to come up with a constructive negotiating stance by the time the UN General Assembly meets in September, the White House should develop a playbook with options other than war. Attacking the centrifuge facility at Natanz and other Iranian nuclear facilities might set back the country's nuclear ambitions for a time, but it could also provoke a wider conflict that would severely harm vital U.S. interests. Iran is likely to respond to such an attack by attacking oil facilities and tankers throughout the Persian Gulf area — driving oil prices sky-high again — and sponsoring a fresh round of violent attacks by its proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere in the Middle East. A unilateral U.S. strike on Iran would also provoke the same sort of international condemnation that greeted the American invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Having options short of war is, therefore, something to be greatly desired. But one must ask: Would a ban on gasoline sales prove a step toward peace, or a step toward war? That is, would it make armed conflict less likely by forcing the Iranians to return to the bargaining table in a more accommodating mood, or would it prove a stepping-stone to military action?
No one can be absolutely sure about this, of course. But there are good reasons to be skeptical about a gasoline ban's effectiveness in promoting peace and cooperation.
To be effective, a gas ban would require the acquiescence of Russia, China, India, and other key powers that are reluctant to impose harsh sanctions on Iran. These countries conduct extensive trade with Iran and are not likely to jeopardize their well-established position there by complying with a U.S.-backed measure. China and Russia, with veto rights at the Security Council, are unlikely to approve any UN measure that entailed enforcement of a gasoline ban through a naval blockade in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, an action essential to prevent cheating and smuggling. With the tacit support of its business partners, the Iranians could easily circumvent the embargo through various devious means.
A U.S.-imposed embargo on refined products would also allow the Ahmadinejad regime to initiate tougher gasoline rationing, raise energy prices, and push through other unpopular economic moves — all in the name of nationalism and anti-imperialism. Anyone who objected to such moves would be branded as an ally or agent of the "Great Satan," the United States.
Under these circumstances, the Iranians would not likely be more inclined to negotiate away its enrichment program than it would absent such a ban. If anything, the conservative mullahs who rule the country may see it as a godsend — as a way of solidifying domestic support at time when many young Iranians appear to be rejecting clerical domination.
On the other hand, a gasoline embargo might provoke the Iranians into taking steps that would increase the risk of war, especially if the United States employed military means to enforce the ban. For example, they could encourage their allies in Iraq, such as the more militant followers of Muqtada al-Sadr, to renew their attacks on American soldiers in Baghdad and elsewhere. In recent months the Sadrists have been relatively quiescent, preferring to engage in political rather than military struggle. But they have hardly eschewed their capacity for mischief, and, with the right prodding from Tehran, might again target American personnel and their Iraqi partners, complicating the U.S. withdrawal.
More frightening scenarios could unfold if the United States and its closest allies seek to enforce an embargo by establishing a naval blockade in waters off Iran and stopping ships thought to be violating the ban. Given the high likelihood of cheating, such a blockade would probably be necessary for the embargo to prove effective. But such a move could be considered an act of war, and might well invite retaliation by Iran's Revolutionary Guard — which sports its own small-ship navy.
An eerie preview of such a scenario occurred in January 2008, when five Iranian speedboats approached several American warships in the Strait of Hormuz and, according to some reports, threatened to blow them up. One U.S. ship, the U.S.S. Hopper, was on the brink of opening fire on the Iranian boats when they veered off, ending the engagement. It is easy to imagine similar scenes — with less benign outcomes —repeating themselves, in the event that American warships attempt to blockade Iranian territory. And once shots are fired, under whatever circumstances, it could prove difficult to avoid escalation to more robust military means, leading to the war scenario the embargo was intended to avert.
That a ban on gasoline sales to Iran carries these potential downsides is not a reason to abandon consideration of such a move. As suggested, it is far better to be thinking of economic sanctions if Iran proves intransigent in the months ahead than to opt automatically for military action. But an oil embargo appears especially risky, both because it would strengthen the hand of conservative clerics in Tehran and it could entail a naval blockade, setting off a chain reaction of violent moves. Administration officials should, therefore, scrutinize this option very rigorously before it becomes the preferred response to an Iranian rebuff in September.
1. A policy of containment and deterrence is the best policy against Iran. From Carter tro Obama this was the policy of U.S. ( with a few notable mistakes by Reagan and Bush). Let's stick with that and see waht happens.
2,Appeasement policies suggested by the author of this article are seriously misguided.
3. The dual model of negotiations and containment helped people in the Warsaw Pact counties. And it will work with a second world state like Iran.
Patience. Deterrence. Containment.
And, please, talk about war only if you will physically be on the front line.
When israel decided to go nuclear, in clear disregard to prohibitions in our aid agreements, we did nothing. The have some 200 weapons.
Brazil and South Africa both had weapons developments: SA collaborated with Israel. Both nations renounced them.
When India went nuclear, we imposed some toothless sanctions, revoked by Bush. Same for Pakistan, except our lack of involvement with the Pakistani armed forces decreased our leverage with them. Pakistan distributed nuclear know-how to various nations.
When Libya was developing nuclear weapons, we did nothing. This is when they were classified as a "terrorist state." They eventually renounced them and ended their nuclear programs.
We asserted, falsely, that Saddam was developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. We invaded, found nothing, at a huge cost in lives and up to $1 trillion.
North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon and possesses medium-range missiles that can easily reach Japan. We're negotiating.
Now, because Iran is developing nuclear technology and in spite of news that the CIA has determined they ended their weapons program, we're insisting that they stop or face sanctions. Israel hints at a military strike. At various points, we've appeared to back or discourage such an act.
Any resemblance between these actions and statements and a "policy" is grounds for flunking an intelligence test.
Very well put.
When weighed against the discomfort a gasoline embargo might cause, not to mention the possibility that turmoil in Iran might keep Israel on the sidelines, I vote for the embargo.
Well, Israel is a nuclear armed country run by Jewish fanatics? And what harm came out of that?
Reminder:
Oh, yes, that's right. A continuous history of invading neighboring territory, razing villages and confiscating land. Bombing urban population centers with no regard for civilians casualties.
Maybe you have a point.
Israel has proven it can be trusted with nuclear weapons, they didn't nuke Baghdad despite taking scud fire during the 1st gulf war, it didn't nuke Damascus or Cairo despite being threatened when attacked on Yom Kippur in 1973. Can you imagine Iran holding its nuclear fire during the Iran/Iraq war? I can't.
Israel btw is a secular society, if you went to Tel Aviv you know know that, but then again if you went to Tel Aviv you might have to put aside some of your ignorant prejudices and no one who reads these posts ever expects that to happen.
The US insists that Iran give up its right to make nuclear fuel and instead demands that Iran import its nuclear fuel from abroad.
The Iranians (and most of the developing world in general) say they can't rely solely on foreign sources and don't want to be exposed to a risk of energy blackmail in the form of cutting off of energy.
And here is the US, now resorting to energy blackmail in the form of gasoline sanctions against Iran, thus only proving Iran's point that foreign sources are always subject to political pressure.
Iran will be contained and marginalized.
Regardless of what people sympathetic to Iranian fundamentalism think.
after 30 years they are the premier power in the Middle East. How do yo imagine them marginalized? Let's hear the fantacy.
Let's be realistic instead delusional. Let's have a policy that works for the US in the long run.
And it should stay that way. Most of the world agrees. Read Security Council resolutions.
an international embargo against Iranian oil is another stupid move . . .
Let the situation in Iran develop without these embargoes and sanctions . . . . all this war mongering is just playing into the foreign policy aims of israel and the neo cons . . . haven't enough people died in Iraq . . time to find a peaceful solution without force . . .the problem in the Middle East is israel . . .
1. Embargoes and sanctions is not "war mongering." It 's precisely OPPOSITE to war mongering. It is using international diplomacy to achieve a strategic goal without having to resort to armed struggle.
Fact: U.N.Security Council voted many times on sanctions against Iran. And in direct contradiction to typical anti Jewish canards peddled h most have no connections to neo- cons, Israel, AIPAC or Freemasons LOL.
Here's what many Arabs think about Iran's meddling in their affairs:
"Iran is interfering in Arab affairs without a right and is consequently a threat to our national security – and this is the message. This is why the Saudi-Egyptian action to confront the Iranian expansion must prevail and Tehran's attempts to seize control of the Arab world must come to grinding halt."
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=12718
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1068762.html
Arabs cannot stop Iran, and they cannot have a nuclear weapons race with Iran because Iranian economy is far more diversified, relies on a vastly educated populus, and it's nuclear program is University based and has 10 000 personel trained. This is why Iran, once the 4th largest economy in the region, is now the largest economy despite having only 1/4 of Saudi oil exports.
The Saudi and Egyptian economies will never be able to keep up with Iran. This is why they have had to unit to confront the growing Iranian influence.
The policy against iran is time tested against Soviets--containment., denial of resources, boycotts, restriction of military trade, encouragement of dissent, old fashioned spying and unrelenting propaganda.
Ditto for Iran.
Appeasement is not a solution, it is a problem.
Iran will implode given enough time and with a little push.
More patience, less fear mongering.
2.This precisely what the author proposes. We shouldn't maintain a wise policy of containment and denial, becuase gasp... that can make Iranians angry.
3. You do realize, of course, that the term appeasement has meaning outside of narrow WW2 N.Chamberlain context? If not., start..
4. Your suggestion that I recommend war with Iran is borne out of stereotyping people who suggest a policy of containment.
5.By the way, Antonym of "appeasement" is "provocation", not full scale attack, as you allege.
Sorry, who is exactly frightened of Iranian belligerence?
Iranians don't fight. They kidnap , take hostages, arm proxies and seed various countries like Yemen Bahrain, Iran, Egypt and Lebanon with various saboteurs.
But they don't openly fight.
Astonishing. You may have heard of the eight year war between Iran and Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War
in which Iran repulsed and blunted Saddam's attacks. Terribly costly for both nations, but the Iranians didn't seem to react like cowards.
Your amazing little omission is the kind of thing that makes Zionist mouthpieces so laughable and vapid to most thinking people. You've convinced yourselves that uttering totally absurd statements and slogans will convince if the are shouted loudly enough.
I'm sure sentient and educated people are laughing at your assertions.
Good work!
Think about it.
I can detect any number of falacies in arvay post..
I'll just cite 3 most obvious ones:
1.Appeal to motive: where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer.
2.Straw man argument: based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
3.Confirmation bias — the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.
I stated that Iran "arm proxies and seed various countries like Yemen Bahrain, Iran, Egypt and Lebanon with various saboteurs. "
Those who find themselves on the other end of Iranian actions don't find thsi absurd or even remotely amusing.
"Iran is interfering in Arab affairs without a right and is consequently a threat to our national security... Tehran's attempts to seize control of the Arab world must come to grinding halt." by Tariq Alhomayed
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=12718
"Yemen points to Iranian backing for rebels....
S"hi'ite rebels in Yemen are receiving financial support from abroad, a government spokesman said, strongly implying Iranian involvement in an armed rebellion that has flared up in recent weeks. "
http://www.reuters.com/article/africaCrisis/idUSLI379993
ABU DHABI (AFP) The foreign ministers of eight Arab states meeting in the United Arab Emirates called on Tuesday for an end to "non-Arab" interference in regional affairs, their host said.
"We are working to... create an Arab consensus on stopping unwelcome and unconstructive interference in our affairs by non-Arab parties," UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nayahan said, in an apparent allusion to Iran."
Let that sink in for a minute.
That's more than we lost in the Second World War - from a country with a much smaller population.
Fact: Current Iranian regime prefer to fight via proxies and assassination. There are hundreds examples thereof.
2. Iran was invaded by Iraq. Not provoked. Invaded. they had no choice but to fight. If they could fight Iraq via proxies they would.
There's no connection between that and fear mongering espoused in this article. And 1000s more like it.