US
juggles double-edged Iran sanctions
By Khody Akhavi
WASHINGTON - In the more than five years since the George W Bush
administration's misdirected adventurism in Iraq, the fundamental balance of
power in the Middle East has shifted.
Iran's mullahs, once fearful of meeting the same fate as the late Iraqi
dictator Saddam Hussein, have become the main beneficiaries of the US quagmire
in Iraq. And they have ramped up their defiance over the current wedge issue in
the twisted path of US-Iranian relations: the nuclear program.
The recent conservative consolidation of Iran's parliament, coupled with the
announcement last week that 6,000 new advanced centrifuges were up and running
at the Natanz uranium-enrichment facility, suggest that US pressure alone - in
the form
of unilateral economic sanctions - has not deterred Iran from continuing its
drive towards mastering the nuclear fuel cycle.
While the Bush administration has maintained a consistent policy supporting
rigid sanctions against Tehran, a bill currently making its way through the
senate may potentially further undermine the international support Washington
seeks to confront Iran and "change its behavior".
As Washington tries to bolster international cooperation over how to deal with
Iran's nuclear program, the domestic push for congressionally-mandated
sanctions has been spearheaded by lobby groups such as the Israel Project, the
neo-conservative think-tank Center for Security Policy and the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, known as S970, amends the Iran
Sanctions Act of 1996 to directly address the nuclear issue, and would impose
sanctions on Iran and countries doing business with it.
The house version of the bill, HR1400, sponsored by the late Representative Tom
Lantos of California, passed the house by a vote of 397 in favor and 16
against.
AIPAC has used its muscle to shape and mold certain divestment bills in state
legislatures across the US, and in the absence of explicit support from the
White House, it is, according to William A Reinsch, president of the National
Foreign Trade Council, "the major group lobbying for this bill".
The bill, which has 70 cosponsors almost evenly divided between Republicans and
Democrats, would subject Russia to specified energy cooperation prohibition
against Iran unless Moscow suspends nuclear assistance and transfers of
conventional weapons and missiles to Iran, and until Iran dismantles its
nuclear enrichment-related programs.
Instead of engendering more Russian cooperation on Iran, S 970 will most likely
weaken Moscow's willingness to cooperate with the US in blocking Iran's nuclear
efforts.
"This is a case where the president is engaged in the delicate process of
getting both allies and not-so allies - China and Russia - to cooperate with us
on sanctions," said Reinsch, at a roundtable discussion last Friday. "Beating
their companies over the head with a stick, which is what this bill will do, is
not what we need."
In 2006, Congress withheld 60% of US foreign aid to Russia because of its
continued assistance to Iran's nuclear and ballistic missiles programs.
Furthermore, by codifying an executive order, S 970 removes the flexibility the
president would need to offer incentives or to respond effectively in the event
of positive developments from Tehran.
Phillip H Gordon of the Brookings Institute told a senate finance committee
hearing last Friday that while he supported many measures of the bill, some of
them were "such blunt instruments" that would further undermine international
cooperation with Washington.
Section 8 of the bill imposes sanctions on US subsidiaries of foreign
companies, which could lead the countries in which those are companies are
based to challenge the bill at the World Trade Organization.
"Most countries, even among our closest allies, reject the extraterritorial
application of US sanctions and they are willing to act to defend the principle
that countries may not impose their own foreign policy priorities on other
countries by taking action against their firms," said Gordon.
US sanctions have had a minimal effect, mainly because Russia and China have
not stopped assisting Tehran in its nuclear goals, but also because Iran has
already survived through three decades of unilateral US sanctions.
Despite the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate saying that Iran had suspended
its nuclear weapons program based on rational cost-benefit analysis, the
consensus among most Washington Beltway insiders is that Iran's advancement in
the nuclear fuel cycle will allow it to develop nuclear weapons if it so
chooses, and that is a possibility that is unacceptable.
Three rounds of United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran have not
produced the desired effect. Last week, Iran rejected European overtures to
halt its uranium enrichment program in return for incentives. "Iran does not
trade its rights in return for incentives," government spokesman Ghalm Hossein
Elham told reporters, according to the Associated Press.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran doesn't need incentives from Europe to obtain its
rights," he said, adding, however, that Iran was open to dialogue with Europe
over its nuclear program.
The Washington view on sanctions against Iran - which critics describe as a
substitute for real diplomatic engagement with Tehran - has analysts agreeing
on the problem but diverging over how to confront it.
"It is obvious that the limited multilateral sanctions now in effect will not
have their desired effect. Than what? If war is off the table, submission and
tribute will remain," said Danielle Pletka of the neo-conservative New American
Enterprise Institute.
"This leaves us with the hope that harsher and more effective economic
sanctions can raise the cost to Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons and change the
calculus of decision-makers in Tehran," she said.
Senior officials from the major powers dealing with Iran - the US, France,
Germany, Britain, Russia and China - are due to meet on April 16 in Shangai to
discuss what the next steps should be against Iran.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
