Author Topic: News Article | Iranian Sanctions and the West  (Read 523 times)

MikeLigalig.com

  • FOUNDER
  • Webmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 33285
  • Please use the share icons below
    • View Profile
    • Book Your Tickets on a Budget
News Article | Iranian Sanctions and the West
« on: March 07, 2013, 12:01:13 AM »
Iranian Sanctions and the West

The US needs to change its position on Iran - but what should it do?        
       

The West sees Iran as an almost mythical supervillain, led by a omnipotent religious overlord and his almost cartoonish puppet President. Concerns about Iran's nuclear intentions have dominated the diplomatic stage for years, but as yet, no progress has been made ? the time is ripe for change. But what kind?

Diplomacy is the Answer
Julia Geiger


GA_googleFillSlot("In_content_300_250");

Iran confounds conventional wisdom. Experts argue that the Iranian regime is an exception to the rule of mutually assured destruction, but no one can say with certainty what the heads of state (President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei) would do were ever to acquire a functioning nuclear warhead and the means to deliver it. Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, threatened by the potential acquisition of a nuclear weapon by a country whose leader has declared the desire to wipe his country off the map, wants to draw a line in the sand. Nuclear enrichment past a certain point should, in his eyes, be taken as an act of aggression and responded to with force. US President Barack Obama, on the other hand, has refused to dictate such a line, instead holding out hope for a gradual and diplomatic solution to the Iranian problem. No matter the intentions of Iran?s leaders, world leaders should stand behind Obama?s more diplomatic stance in the near future.
Iran may be more willing to listen than world leaders give them credit for: during the Bush presidency, Iran presented a plan to stop nuclear development, only to be shot down by an administration that not only refused to negotiate, but coined the term ?Axis of Evil? to explain why negotiating with Iran would be utterly impossible. To a regime built on anti-Western sentiments, this harsh rebuke to their tenuous efforts was perceived as a slap in the face, and it sent the Iranian regime scuttling back to its extremist rhetoric. A different approach, built on mutual respect, would fare much better. To the Iranian regime, appearances are everything, so large powers must be willing to listen to what Iran has to say rather than dictating, and to treat the country like something more than a misbehaved child. 
Another reason Iran should be willing to listen to international negotiations is its floundering economy. Tough sanctions imposed by Western powers have certainly taken a toll on it: the latest numbers show Iranian oil revenues are down 45%. The Iranian government is totally dependent on oil revenues to fund the government, as well as to keep its people in check. Since oil is not really dependent on labor supplied, the government can afford to oppress its people without fear of strikes, but only so long as oil funds are constant. If revenues continue declining, or even if they remain at their current rate, the regime may not be able to sustain its stranglehold on the country. The sanctions have also kept vital pieces of the nuclear puzzle out of Iran?s hands. If Iran begins losing control of its people and cannot build a nuclear weapon, they should prove much more willing to negotiate.
Similarly, Syria?s probable demise may force Iran?s hand. Bashar al-Assad has been one of Iran?s staunchest allies, and the only real source of hegemonic power in the Middle East. With the majority of the Western world, including the United States, backing the rebels in the civil war, Assad?s chances at winning the civil war are uncertain at best. If Iran?s most important ally indeed falls, it will be a huge blow. In the current precarious state, Iran would be wise to diversify their group of allies, or at least minimize their enemies.
Even if Iran does not prove overly receptive to negotiations, it would still be in the West?s interests to proceed diplomatically. For one, aggressive actions towards Iran have not historically been well received by Russia, and Iran?s regime feeds off anti-Western sentiment: a move to attack, or even a hard line that seems in the least bit unfair, would be propagandized in no time at all. The West does not have much capital in Iran since the downfall of the oppressive US-backed regime. Perhaps even more importantly, the US and Israel should try to build capital with the rest of the world now: if Iran ignores clear, open efforts at negotiations in favor of building its nuclear arsenal, other world leaders would be much more inclined to favor aggressive actions in the future than if the beginning position had been offensive.
There are arguments in favor of drawing lines in the sand; should Iran succeed in attaining a nuclear bomb, negotiations would become exponentially more difficult and the likelihood of a nuclear war would skyrocket. But in the past, lines in the sand have often been disrespected, and Iran?s current precariousness presents a unique opportunity for its Western antagonists: should negotiations succeed, the entire world could rest easier. Without at least trying out a diplomatic approach without dramatic threats, the potential for a peaceful and agreeable solution to all parties would be lost. Ultimatums have not worked with Iran in the past, and there is no reason to suppose one will work now. A new strategy is in order ? one that allows for the possibility of a rational Iranian regime, and one that will hopefully put an end to the very real possibility of nuclear war in the Middle East.
Iran confounds conventional wisdom. Experts argue that the Iranian regime is an exception to the rule of mutually assured destruction, but no one can say with certainty what the heads of state (President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei) would do were ever to acquire a functioning nuclear warhead and the means to deliver it. Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, threatened by the potential acquisition of a nuclear weapon by a country whose leader has declared the desire to wipe his country off the map, wants to draw a line in the sand. Nuclear enrichment past a certain point should, in his eyes, be taken as an act of aggression and responded to with force. US President Barack Obama, on the other hand, has refused to dictate such a line, instead holding out hope for a gradual and diplomatic solution to the Iranian problem. No matter the intentions of Iran?s leaders, world leaders should stand behind Obama?s more diplomatic stance in the near future.
Iran may be more willing to listen than world leaders give them credit for: during the Bush presidency, Iran presented a plan to stop nuclear development, only to be shot down by an administration that not only refused to negotiate, but coined the term ?Axis of Evil? to explain why negotiating with Iran would be utterly impossible. To a regime built on anti-Western sentiments, this harsh rebuke to their tenuous efforts was perceived as a slap in the face, and it sent the Iranian regime scuttling back to its extremist rhetoric. A different approach, built on mutual respect, would fare much better. To the Iranian regime, appearances are everything, so large powers must be willing to listen to what Iran has to say rather than dictating, and to treat the country like something more than a misbehaved child. 
Another reason Iran should be willing to listen to international negotiations is its floundering economy. Tough sanctions imposed by Western powers have certainly taken a toll on it: the latest numbers show Iranian oil revenues are down 45%. The Iranian government is totally dependent on oil revenues to fund the government, as well as to keep its people in check. Since oil is not really dependent on labor supplied, the government can afford to oppress its people without fear of strikes, but only so long as oil funds are constant. If revenues continue declining, or even if they remain at their current rate, the regime may not be able to sustain its stranglehold on the country. The sanctions have also kept vital pieces of the nuclear puzzle out of Iran?s hands. If Iran begins losing control of its people and cannot build a nuclear weapon, they should prove much more willing to negotiate.
Similarly, Syria?s probable demise may force Iran?s hand. Bashar al-Assad has been one of Iran?s staunchest allies, and the only real source of hegemonic power in the Middle East. With the majority of the Western world, including the United States, backing the rebels in the civil war, Assad?s chances at winning the civil war are uncertain at best. If Iran?s most important ally indeed falls, it will be a huge blow. In the current precarious state, Iran would be wise to diversify their group of allies, or at least minimize their enemies.
Even if Iran does not prove overly receptive to negotiations, it would still be in the West?s interests to proceed diplomatically. For one, aggressive actions towards Iran have not historically been well received by Russia, and Iran?s regime feeds off anti-Western sentiment: a move to attack, or even a hard line that seems in the least bit unfair, would be propagandized in no time at all. The West does not have much capital in Iran since the downfall of the oppressive US-backed regime. Perhaps even more importantly, the US and Israel should try to build capital with the rest of the world now: if Iran ignores clear, open efforts at negotiations in favor of building its nuclear arsenal, other world leaders would be much more inclined to favor aggressive actions in the future than if the beginning position had been offensive.
There are arguments in favor of drawing lines in the sand; should Iran succeed in attaining a nuclear bomb, negotiations would become exponentially more difficult and the likelihood of a nuclear war would skyrocket. But in the past, lines in the sand have often been disrespected, and Iran?s current precariousness presents a unique opportunity for its Western antagonists: should negotiations succeed, the entire world could rest easier. Without at least trying out a diplomatic approach without dramatic threats, the potential for a peaceful and agreeable solution to all parties would be lost. Ultimatums have not worked with Iran in the past, and there is no reason to suppose one will work now. A new strategy is in order ? one that allows for the possibility of a rational Iranian regime, and one that will hopefully put an end to the very real possibility of nuclear war in the Middle East.

Decisive Action ? Not the Same Old Refrain
Mark Thomas
When looking for inspiration on solving the great problems of the Near East, I like to turn to the region?s most popular product. Revelation 3:16 reads ?because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.? For too long, the international community has attempted to take the middle ground when negotiating with Iran about their nuclear program, and to no effect. Since the program became of concern to the US after the Shah fell in 1979, it has progressed practically unabated despite all negotiations, sanctions, and other tactics used to delay it. The US and its allies are fully supportive of Iran?s civilian nuclear intentions ? so long as they buy the fuel from outside suppliers, like Russia. The issue at stake is if Iran ought to enrich the uranium themselves, and to what level of purity.
As usual, the US began with a hard line and has slowly had to back down; their original stance was that Iran would under no circumstances be allowed to enrich any uranium. When Iran did anyway, the US tried to bargain for a maximum 3% of fuel purity. Iran ignored this suggestion and enriched to 20 percent, so the US absurdly tried to give a counteroffer of 5 percent. The pattern here is obvious; Iran, like North Korea before it, is doing what it wants to with no regard to foreign negotiating. The global community has had little to no effect on the actual trajectory of their nuclear program. The recent sanctions, although remarkable in their severity and scope, have similarly yet to yield results. Indeed, Iran is successfully stalling the latest round of talks by continually changing their location, a transparent tactic that signals indifference for global opinion.  Despite all efforts, Iran has continued over the past ten years to build centrifuges, enrich uranium, and deny IAEA inspectors access to their facilities. Iran has also recently begun negotiations with Venezuela to mine uranium, creating a consistent source for the raw material they can then enrich at will.
What is the goal of the sanctions? Hopefully not to leave the entire country so strapped for cash that they literally cannot afford the cement to build more uranium storage bunkers. Many foreign powers hope that the sanctions? economic impact will change the tide of public opinion in Iran and convince them to abandon their nuclear designs. This is unlikely. Although in October there were serious protests over rapid currency devaluation, there are now few signs of unrest. Furthermore, it is a vain hope that the protesters? rage will somehow shift from the rial?s plummet to the nuclear program; while many demanded President Ahmadinejad?s resignation over the crisis, it was because he mismanaged the economy, not that incurred international sanctions. Indeed, it seems that Western commentators are the only ones to have identified the sanctions as the cause of Iran?s woes ? except Ahmadinejad, who is so confident in the popularity of the program that his defense against the protesters? accusations was to try to shift the blame to the sanctions. He has reason to be confident in the nuclear program?s support ? polls have consistently shown that a majority of Iran?s population supports the nuclear program. It has become a point of national pride.
Anyone hoping for a sanctions-induced regime change shouldn?t hold their breath. Despite the backlash against Ahmadinejad, there has yet to be any public criticism of the Ayatollah, and there probably will not be. And although Iran will be holding presidential elections this year, all of the major candidates so far are staunch supporters of the nuclear program.
The international community needs to evaluate our actions critically and with a clear head: Iran is not about to stop enriching uranium. Our obsession with sanctions has gotten us nowhere. We need to abandon the middle ground and move to a tenable position: either we use force to physically disrupt the nuclear program, or we radically adjust our expectations.
So far the only demonstrable disruptions to Iran?s uranium enrichment have been cyber attacks, strategically placed explosives and assassinations. If the international community is convinced that a nuclear Iran is absolutely unacceptable, then the only way to prevent it is through similar action. Indeed, Iran?s parallel to North Korea has become much eerier as signs of cooperation between the two countries? nuclear programs continue to emerge.
Alternatively, the US could drastically alter its negotiation tactics and accept Iran?s 20 percent benchmark. Despite all efforts, Iran continues to enrich uranium, and sanctions have only made them more antagonistic and less likely to agree to IAEA sanctions. The US could adopt a friendlier strategy and give Iran the benefit of the doubt that they genuinely intend the uranium for purely civilian purposes (the 20 percent enrichment, somewhat high for a nuclear reactor, is purportedly destined for a medical facility) ? and then leverage that friendship to follow up with IAEA due diligence and inspections. Although sanctions seem like a good idea, the simple fact is they are having no effect; the longer we remain in denial about this, the closer Iran is to achieving nuclear status with no oversight. Better to abandon the middle ground and adopt a new approach ? be it use of force or conciliatory negotiations, at least then we might get results.

Source: Iranian Sanctions and the West

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=70980.0
John 3:16-18 ESV
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son (Jesus Christ), that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

👉 GET easy and FAST online loan at www.tala.com Philippines

Book tickets anywhere for planes, trains, boats, bus at www.12go.co

unionbank online loan application low interest, credit card, easy and fast approval

Tags: