George Santayana wisely
said: "Those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it." Oblivious to history and
its lessons, the United States and its Western
allies are repeating their actions from the 1950s
- that of imposing an oil embargo on Iran. The
US-led alliance has forgotten the past.
Iran remembers.
When under the
leadership of the nationalist Dr Mossadegh, Iran
opted to nationalize its oil industry, the British
Royal Navy blocked Iran's oil exports to
forcefully prevent if from nationalizing its oil.
In retaliation to Iran's nationalistic ambitions,
and to punish Iran for pursuing its national
interests, the British instigated a
worldwide boycott of
Iranian oil.
In the 1950s, Iran did not
have the military might to retaliate against the
oil embargo and the naval blockade was aimed at
crushing the economy in order to bring about
regime change. The subsequent events are described
in a New York Times [1] article as a "lesson in
the heavy cost that must be paid" when an oil-rich
Third World nation "goes berserk with fanatical
nationalism". Iran learnt that sovereignty and
nationalism necessitate tactical/military strength
and determination.
Not heeding the
aftermath of the 1950s, the American-led Western
allies have once again imposed an oil embargo on
Iran. In retaliation, Iran has drafted a bill to
stop the flow of oil through its territorial
waters - the Strait of Hormuz, to countries that
have imposed sanctions against it. This bill is
not without merit and contrary to the previous oil
embargo, it would appear that Tehran has the upper
hand and the heavy cost associated with the
embargo will not be borne by Iran alone.
Iran's legal standing The 1982
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) stipulates that vessels can exercise the
right of innocent passage and coastal states
should not impede their passage. Although Iran has
signed the Treaty, the Treaty was not ratified and
as such it has no legal standing. However, even if
one overlooks the non-binding signature, under the
UNCLOS framework of international law, a coastal
state can block ships from entering its
territorial waters if the passage of the ships
harm "peace, good order or security" of said
state, as the passage of such ships would no
longer be deemed "innocent" [2].
Even if
Iran simply chooses to merely delay the passage of
tankers by exercising its right to inspect every
oil-tanker that passes through the Strait of
Hormuz, these inspections and subsequent delays
would maintain or contribute to higher oil prices.
While higher oil prices would benefit Iran and
other oil-producing countries, they would further
destabilize the European economy, which is already
in crisis.
The military
option Although US-led Western allies are
flexing their muscles by sending battle ships to
the Persian Gulf, Washington's own war game
exercise, the Millennium Challenge 2002 (with a
price tag of $250 million), underscored its
inability to defeat Iran. Oblivious to the lesson
of its own making, by sending more warships to the
Persian Gulf the US is inching towards a
full-scale conflict. The inherent danger from a
naval buildup is that unlike the Cuban Missile
Crisis, the forces in the Persian Gulf are not
confined to two leaders who would be able to
communicate to stop a run-away situation. Nor
would the consequences of such a potential
conflict be limited to the region.
Given
that 17 million barrels of oil a day, or 35% of
the world's seaborne oil exports go through the
Strait of Hormuz, incidents in the Strait would be
fatal for the world economy. While only 1.1
millions barrels per day go to the US, a
significant amount of this oil is destined for
Europe. One must ask why the US demands that its
"European allies" act contrary to their own
national interest, pay a higher price for oil by
boycotting Iran's exports and increase the risk of
Iran blocking the passage of other oil-tankers
destined for them.
Again, history has a
straight answer. Contrary to conventional wisdom
about oil producing-countries, it is the US that
has used oil as a weapon. Some examples include
the pressure Washington put on Britain in the
1920s to share its oil concessions in the Middle
East with US companies. Post World War II, the US
violated the terms of the 1928 Red Line Agreement
freezing the British and the French out of the
Agreement.
In 1956, the US made it clear
to Britain and France that no oil would be sent to
Western Europe unless the two countries agreed to
a rapid withdrawal from Egypt. The US was not
opposed to the overthrow of Egyptian President
Gamal Abdel Nasser, but President Dwight. D
Eisenhower said: "Had they done it quickly, we
would have accepted it"[3].
It is possible
that the leaders of Western European countries are
beholden to special interest groups such as
pro-Israel lobbies, as the US is. Or they may
believe that Iran will not call their bluff by
ratifying the bill passed by the Majlis and
that oil will be delivered unhindered. Perhaps
both instances hold. Either way, they are
committing financial suicide and may well suffer
serious consequences before Iran's resolve is
shaken.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent
researcher and blogger with a focus on US foreign
policy and the role of lobby groups.
Used with permission of Jim Lobe's blog
on US foreign policy.
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
