The temperature between the West and Iran has increased dramatically. Escalation by both sides coupled with a reckless discourse that has normalised the idea of war have created an environment where military confrontation is a rising probability. The next escalatory step pondered by Europe -- in the midst of its own economic crisis -- is a total embargo on Iranian oil. An idea that a few months ago was considered a non-starter now has an air of inevitability.
Sanctions are rarely effective. But right before their imposition -- at the moment where they remain a withdrawable threat -- their effectiveness is at their height. The challenge with multilateral sanctions, however, is that the diplomatic resources required to create consensus around sanctions are so great that once the sanctions threat gains momentum, the commitment of the sanctioning countries to this path tends to become irreversible. Rather than utilising the threat of sanctions to compel a change in policy, they tend to confuse the means with the goal. Backing down from the threat becomes too costly so sanctions become unstoppable -- and ineffective.
This is what happened in May 2010 when the Obama administration and the EU opted for a new round of UN Security Council sanctions on Iran even though Tehran at the last moment succumbed to Western demands on a fuel swap offer.
The Obama administration's limited diplomacy with Iran in October 2009 was centered on a fuel swap aimed at getting 1,200kg of Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) out of Iran in return for fuel pads for a medical research reactor and by that create greater political space for continued talks. But political infighting in Iran and Iranian demands for mechanisms that would guarantee that the fuel would be delivered caused the diplomacy to fall short.
Though the West recognised that the deal had fallen victim to internal politics in Iran, the U.S. and the EU abandoned diplomacy and returned to the sanctions track by November 2009. But resistance from Russia and China was stiff and a new resolution could not be adopted early Spring 2010 as they had hoped. Far greater diplomatic resources and time had to be invested to win China and Russia's buy-in.
Moscow and Beijing were not the only obstacles. Turkey and Brazil, who also served on the UN Security Council at the time, believed that diplomacy could still be resurrected. With Washington's half-hearted blessing, the two states embarked on their own mediation effort in order to get Iran to yes. With a letter in hand from Obama declaring Washington's desire to see 1,200kg of Iranian Low Enriched Uranium put in escrow in Turkey, the Brazilians and Turks headed to Tehran for an 18-hour marathon negotiation. The West did not expect them to be successful, after all, the Iranians were not interested in a deal, White House officials believed. Still, Turkey and Brazil needed to experience failure on their own in order for them to come on board with sanctions.
After two days of talks, Brazil and Turkey shocked the West -- they had an agreement. These two up and coming states had succeeded where the U.S. and the EU powers had failed for years. Though some facts had changed on the ground, the deal -- the Tehran Declaration -- followed the benchmarks of the U.S. proposal from only six months earlier and the guidelines listed in Obama's letter to the leaders of Turkey and Brazil.
But rather than viewing this as the diplomatic breakthrough the West had sought in October 2009, it was viewed as a deceptive Iranian trick. Unbeknownst to Turkey and Brazil, Obama had secured Russia and China's approval for sanctions only a day before the talks in Tehran began. Almost without reflection, Sectary of State Hillary Clinton gave the agreement the death knell, declaring in the U.S. Senate that Washington's response was to adopt a sanctions resolution at the UN, while adding that this diplomatic efforts had made "the world more dangerous."
The British viewed the agreement as a "distraction." Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon told me that it was a "blatant ploy" by Iran and that Turkey and Brazil had been taken for a ride. Connecting the agreement with the UN vote in a negative way, a senior EU official told me that "If you look at the timing of the Tehran Declaration, it was done at the eve of the vote. Is that a very credible sign? ... The P5 didn't want any monkey business at that time."
The sanctions momentum had become too great -- the lure of the sanctions trumped the diplomatic breakthrough it ostensibly was supposed to bring about. Once concencus on sanctions among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council had been reached, it was deemed more valuable than a nuclear opening.
Now the EU is about to repeat this mistake. On the one hand, the EU is aggressively moving forward with an oil embargo -- a step that a senior EU official explained to me as the last step short of war. On the other hand, a new round of talks is in the making. Sceptics will argue that the Iranians are only coming to the table due to the sanctions pressure and that their aim is to undo the sanctions momentum.
This is an astonishing statement. After all, the official objective of the sanctions are to get Iran back to the table.
If a new round of talks take place, there should be little doubt that negotiations will be tough. The divide between the two sides has grown as a result of the mutual escalation. And political space for the kind of sustained diplomacy needed to produce a breakthrough is in short supply in the U.S., Iran and the EU. Rather than a negotiation, we are likely to see yet another exchange of ultimatums. But if the EU repeats the mistake of 2010 and lets its mistrust overtake its judgement and imposes an oil embargo prior to the next meeting, then diplomacy will likely be dead on arrival.
Trita Parsi is the author of "A Single Roll of the Dice -- Obama's Diplomacy with Iran."
The piece first appeared in "The Independent."
Follow Trita Parsi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tparsi
Leon T. Hadar: Another War That Nobody Wants
One can always tell who actually read the entire narrative and captured the essence of US diplomacy. As noted in the article, the US interest and strategic motive centers on oil, gas and pipelines disguised as multicolored revolution to expand our "brand" of democracy. Such farce.
Sanctions failed as it had always. It's an act to bully countries. From the Balkans, Belarus, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Zimbabwe.
OF LATE, YEMEN
The next step is to destabilize regimes, turn them to full blown civil war, and then world conflict. THE MEETING OF BLOOD AND OIL.
The UN Security Council - Russia and China will vote against further sanctions because as the article correctly noted, they were bamboozled by our leaders with their half hearted diplomacy. The latest act of invalidation - undermining Tehran Declaration following the US benchmark calling it a "trick".
China and Russia learned their lesson fast.
US, France, Britain - 3 permanent of the UN Security Council are in themselves undergoing financial and economic collapse. Ironic.
Conversely Russia has embarked on an ambitious program to rebuilt its economy with its new found oil dominance and high technology sectors, 9th most highest GDP.
China - well . . we all know will the next # geopolitical eminence, engaged in 21st century industrialization and booming economy.
The bullies never learned the lessons of history.
Cutting off, even partially. this income stream is the best way to compel Iranian to the bargaining table.
If Supreme Leader and his military enablers choose nuclear weapons development under this threat of economic ruin proves the point they are incompetent and must removed from power ASAP. By a combination of inside and outside pressure.
Lets say I walk up to you and hit you up side the head with a baseball bat. Will that compel you to negotiate with me or will you want to grab a gun and get back at me?
History has proven that your method NEVER WORKS and always leads to war.
If you want to negotiate, you have to be willing to give up you idea that you can treat the people on the other side like peons.
Given the last 100+ years of abuse of Iran by the UK and US, Iran is very rational to want nukes to keep the super aggressive bully (the US) in check.
You just displayed the same naked aggression.
Tragic absence of historical knowledge.
Sanctions and divestment worked extremely well against apartheid South Africa.
Sanctions helped to end the Serbo- Bosnian war.
Sanctions helped to force Libya to give up Lockerbie criminals
And most importantly, Various forms of sanctions denials of hitech and diplomatic, economic and military containment policies helped to drive the Soviet Empire into irrelevancy.
Study history instead of repeating other people's talking points.
The way the current regime in Iran treats US, Europe and other non-Islamic nations is similar to the ruthless way it has treated its own native Zoroastrian religion people. Shah of Iran was more tolerant of the Zoroastrians, his neighbors and the Western world. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Zoroastrians ......'The 1979 Islamic Revolution was equally traumatic for the remaining Zoroastrians, and their numbers reduced drastically. Immediately after the revolution, during Bazargan's premiership, Muslim revolutionaries "walked into the main Zoroastrian fire temple in Tehran and removed the portrait of the Prophet Zoroaster and replaced it with one of Khomeini."... etc'
This regime should not have nukes!!
When Iranian progressives overthrow it (with the help of the world community) great Iranian people will resume their rightful place in the world community.
Until that event the international community must continue to marginalize and contain Iranian fanatical regime.
Ever strengthening regime of sanctions and embargoes and denials of technology are the correct way to approach the problem.
With patience and resolve, regressive Iranian regime can be toppled by a combination of outside and inside pressure and its own irrelevancy.
http://original.antiwar.com/avnery/2012/01/06/the-stolen-war/
What next (in Hormuz)? There will be no alternative to “boots on the ground”. The US army will have to land on the shore and occupy all the territory from which missiles can be effectively launched. That would be a major operation. Fierce Iranian resistance must be expected, judging from the experience of the eight-year Iraqi-Iranian war. The oil wells in neighboring Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states will also be hit.
The game you're playing is 'Don't Know Much About History or Anything Else'
They are paranoid. Justifiably paranoid. Surrounded militarily. they see an internal opposition supported by foreign agents (leadership believes that - goes with the territory). Western states and multilateral organisations pour out a stream of warmongering comments.
Understandable they threaten to close the Straits. Only gambit they have left.
War may unite the Iranian people and set back processes of reform. Those who think it will accelerate collapse are placing hope above reality.
There are three words which keep the recalcitrant Islamists who run Iran going for a nuclear weapon. They are - Israel, Pakistan, India.
And it is not Israel, Pakistan, India, or even the US that has kept Iran's military from having nukes at its disposal, it is the political leadership, especially the religious branch of that leadership, who have done so.
No argument from me.
No one doubted unhinged mental state of Iranian leaders.
Case in point:
"Iranian intelligence operatives recently detained over a dozen squirrels found within the nation's borders, claiming the rodents were serving as spies for Western powers determined to undermine the Islamic Republic.
"In recent weeks, intelligence operatives have arrested 14 squirrels within Iran's borders," state-sponsored news agency IRNA reported. "The squirrels were carrying spy gear of foreign agencies, and were stopped before they could act, thanks to the alertness of our intelligence services."
Here's proof.
If they have no affect - why should they lead to a war ?
that Iranian regime is deceiving the world community and U.N. Security Council in their single minded pursuit of nuclear weapons and missiles capable of delivering nuclear warhead payloads.
And they are being punished for it because the world simply doesn't trust this demonstrably unbalanced regime with such weapons.
At any point in time Iran can stop working on it and resume its place in the international community.
Until then the diplomatic efforts must be backed up by vigorous system of
sanctions and embargoes and denial of various services against Iran.
If you actually want to negotiate, the first thing you have to do is SHUT UP and LISTEN to the side.
No human responds well to demands.
That could certainly be argued in the case of the sanctions imposed following the 1991 bombing of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure, which had deliberately targeted water purification plants, electric power plants, pumping stations, irrigation systems etc. The sanctions, preventing the import, among other things, of the necessary material to rebuild the destroyed infrastructing took the form of a veritable military blockade that was in itself an act of war.
Moreover, those sanctions were directly responsible for the deaths of at least half a million Iraqi children, prompting the UN humanitarian coordinator and former UN Assistant Secretary General Denis Halliday to resign his post in disgust at what he described as “genocide”.
“ Anyone who claims that sanctions are an act of war know nothing about either.”
That is an incredibly shortsighted, narrow-minded and void of any political insightfulness opinion.
Indeed, the current intense and excessive sanctions imposed on Iran for its only fault of being independent and disobedient are not only illegal but act of war too.
Faramarz Fathi
TEHRAN/LONDON, Jan 6 (Reuters) - Iran announced on Friday new military exercises in the Strait of Hormuz, but the West has readied plans to use strategic oil stocks to replace almost all Gulf oil lost if Iran blocks the waterway, industry sources and diplomats told Reuters.
They said senior executives of the International Energy Agency (IEA) discussed on Thursday an existing plan to release up to 14 million barrels per day (bpd) of government-owned oil stored in the United States, Europe, Japan and other importers.
This rate of release could be kept up for a month, offsetting most of the 16 million barrels a day of crude passing through the world's most important shipping lane that could be halted by an Iranian blockade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_%28United_States%29
United States
The US SPR is the largest emergency supply in the world with the current capacity to hold up to 727 million barrels (115,600,000 m3).
The current inventory is displayed on the SPR's website. As of May 31, 2011, the current inventory was 726.5 million barrels (115,500,000 m3). This equates to 34 days of oil at current daily US consumption levels of 21 million barrels per day (3,300,000 m3/d).
No allowance is made for hoarding/panic buying which is almost certain to occur. Of course, the price spike that this would generate will cause those who can to cut back on their use, but that will have a profound effect on the American economy.
No allowance has been made for the increase in demand for oil from the military.
The wildcard of Venezuelan reaction is ignored.
On day one, confidence will be high that the situation will be over within 30 days, so opening the valves on these strategic reserves will not seem like a problem. On day 15, with no progress being made on restoring tanker traffic, there will be serious pressure to turn those valves shut so that the military and vital industries will have something to draw on. And that is if all the damage is limited to just the militaries and those ships trying to run the passage. If the ports and/or tankers that are waiting start taking damage, that pressure to stop draining the reserves will occur a lot sooner.
Personally, I think that realistically it would be 2-4 days before a rationing regime is enforced in the EU, and 4-6 days before one is in place in the US