COMMENT Time for a reckoning on Iran
sanctions By Hilary Matfess
With President Barack Obama's nomination
of Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense,
US-Iranian relations have been thrust back into
the news cycle. The dominant narrative in this
coverage - at least the one put forth by his
critics - is that Hagel is "too soft" on Iran, in
light of his preference for political solutions
over military ones and his skepticism about
economic sanctions. Hagel's statement in 2006 that
"A military strike against Iran, a military
option, is not a viable,
feasible, responsible option" has been repeated ad
nauseum in recent weeks, by both his supporters
and detractors.
While the secretary of
defense will undoubtedly play a significant role
in determining the administration's policies
towards Iran, the fervor surrounding Hagel's
nomination has precluded a discussion of other
nominees' stances on Iran. Notably, there has been
no discussion of treasury nominee Jacob Lew's
stance on economic sanctions, and very little
review of John Kerry's legislative record on Iran.
This must change. The debates surrounding
Obama's cabinet nominations offer a welcome
opportunity for the public - and the
administration - to review the failing US policy
toward Iran.
Most pressing is a review of
the sanctions regime. As D B Grady explained in
The Week, the goal of the sanctions is to "choke
Iran's economy until the head dies. The masses
will rise up and topple the Iranian state. Or the
government will slap the mat three times and take
heed of the will of the international community,
specifically concerning Tehran's nuclear
ambitions."
But this logic doesn't reflect
the reality of the situation. Even those who are
supportive of the sanctions maintain that Iran's
alleged nuclear ambitions remain undeterred.
Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who
supports a more aggressive policy towards Iran
than the Obama administration, stated on the
Senate floor that "Our sanctions are having a
demonstrable effect on the Iranian economy, but
Iran is still working just as hard to develop
nuclear weapons."
Simply put, these
sanctions are ineffective - they have led to
immense human suffering, depleted any lingering
goodwill towards the United States among ordinary
Iranians, and failed to create the conditions for
a diplomatic settlement over Iran's nuclear
program. This can only benefit Iran hawks, who
invariably point to the failure of sanctions as
evidence that a military strike is America's best
option.
This failure should not come as a
surprise. Political scientist Robert Pape, in a
1997 article entitled "Why Economic Sanctions do
not Work," reviewed the historical efficacy of
economic sanctions and concluded that they have
been overwhelmingly ineffective. Pape found that
sanctions were particularly ineffective against
countries with a significant middle class and when
they are implemented to achieve a political end.
He argued that the ruling elites could maintain
their position through the exploitation of the
middle class, in part by using the sanctions to
curry nationalistic sentiments among the general
population.
This is almost exactly what
has happened in Iran. The New York Times reported
last year that the economic burden from the
sanctions "is falling largely on the middle
class," and that "ordinary Iranians complain that
the sanctions are hurting them, while those at the
top are unscathed, or even benefit." The sanctions
have made it difficult for Iranian citizens to
acquire adequate medical care and have sent prices
for crucial goods soaring.
Yet in spite of
the hardships faced by Iranian citizens, the
country's nuclear program has become an important
national symbol. Kayhan Barzegar, of the Institute
for Middle East Strategic Studies, told the Times
that "The nuclear file is a nationalistic issue;
it's too late for Iran to backtrack. Domestic
politics will react negatively to any negotiation
- candidates in the elections will say: you sold
the nuclear program!" Far from acting as a
deterrent, the economic sanctions may have only
galvanized the Iranian nuclear program.
With a second term secured, perhaps the
Obama administration can now turn a critical eye
to its policies towards Iran. Indeed, by rejecting
another round of economic sanctions on Iran at the
end of 2012, the administration may already have
been telegraphing a shift away from the
chest-thumping rhetoric of the election cycle
towards a more reasoned approach.
In lieu
of employing ineffective policies that please
neither hawks nor doves while wreaking havoc on
the lives of millions of Iranians, the
administration should recognize Iran's motivation
for developing nuclear weapons - namely as a
deterrent in a region dotted with US military
installations, beset by all-too-recent US
invasions, and ruled by hostile US-armed regimes.
Hopefully the confirmation process for
Obama's next cabinet appointees will kick off a
reasoned, nation-wide debate about the failure and
future of US policies towards Iran. Failing that,
the nomination of the reasonable and experienced
Chuck Hagel to the post of Secretary of Defense is
an encouraging sign that a sorely needed shift in
policy is possible.
Hilary
Matfess is a contributor to Foreign Policy in
Focus.
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
