| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iranian public is a major factor in decisions over Iran sanctions |
| 2006-01-21 |
| As Western governments debate how to punish Iran for its nuclear activities, Bush administration and European officials said Thursday that they wanted to avoid causing hardship or more anti-Western resentment in the Iranian public. The officials said that sanctions were not in the offing anytime soon, and they had ruled out any early steps toward an oil embargo or other sorts of sweeping economic punishments that would not only be opposed in Europe but would also cause internal suffering in Iran. Iran's leverage over the West because of its oil exports and trade agreements are a fact of life that American and European officials said made sanctions in that area impractical. But these officials also argue the importance of not alienating Iranians who might support the West, causing them to rally around their leaders. "A heavy-handed sanctions approach is going to hurt an awful lot of Iranians that we don't want to alienate," said a State Department official who is working on the issue. "We're going to have to be more surgical." President Bush and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany discussed the need for "smart sanctions" in a meeting last week, according to a German diplomatic official, with Mrs. Merkel in particular pushing for care in not angering the Iranian public. Various Western diplomats said Thursday that one way of punishing Iranian leaders would be to impose travel bans or freeze the assets of government officials in crucial ministries or business leaders close to the theocracy. Another step might involve acting against any businesses connected to Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program. Iran has denied having any such program. Bush administration officials cited as an example the Treasury Department's move on Wednesday to freeze assets of the director of Syrian military intelligence over that country's involvement in the assassination of Lebanese political figures. The issue of penalties has become more pressing as a Feb. 2 emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency approaches. Western officials are planning to refer Iran for action at that meeting, and proposals will then be considered in the United Nations Security Council and referred back to the atomic agency. Even as the notion of sweeping sanctions was being discounted, however, the administration also came under pressure on Thursday to move quickly toward such penalties. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, a leading Democrat, announced that he would shortly introduce a resolution calling for just such a step. "We have wasted valuable time, diverted resources and ignored this problem at our peril," Mr. Bayh said, noting that he supports a ban on gasoline sales to Iran and other economic punishments. "No one wants to forestall the need to use military force more than I do, but if we are to do so, we must act now." As a practical matter, a resolution like the one Mr. Bayh put forward might be popular among senators but would also be unlikely to be voted on quickly, especially if the administration wants to hold off on punishments while it is in the final throes of negotiating with Europeans on what to do about Iran. Andy Fisher, a spokesman for Senator Richard G. Lugar, an Indiana Republican who heads the Foreign Relations Committee, also said the committee generally favored waiting for the last stages of diplomacy to be played out before sanctions on Iran are considered. Even then, Mr. Fisher said, sanctions should be imposed in a way that did not replicate what happened in Iraq in the 1990's, when a ban on oil exports caused huge suffering among Iraqis but also led to profits among Saddam Hussein and his clique as they evaded the sanctions through the black market. In their discussions last week, Mrs. Merkel gave Mr. Bush a personal example of how such sanctions affected her fellow East Germans during the Communist years, the German diplomatic official said Thursday. She recalled that she and other Germans sympathetic to the West had no problem with Western actions that punished Communist leaders but that "if we ran out of oranges or bananas, then we didn't like it." Even attempts to put pressure on the Soviet Union by banning their participation in the 1980 Olympics were unpopular among sympathetic Germans, Mrs. Merkel was said to have told Mr. Bush. The president's reaction was not known, but an administration official said a ban on World Cup participation was not being considered. Indeed, administration officials have maintained that permitting Iranian athletes or musicians to travel to the West should be encouraged, to help open Iran to outside influences, encourage defections and lead eventually to internal demands for change. "The focus on smart sanctions makes sense because they work the best," said Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "Big economic sanctions would not only be difficult to get, but Iran has vast foreign reserves from its oil revenues, so they can ride out what gets thrown at them." Mr. Clawson, who has written extensively about Iran, said Iranian leaders were acutely sensitive to being diplomatically isolated so that travel bans and asset freezes "offer some pretty good prospects." A side benefit of such smaller sanctions, he said, is that "what might be easier to achieve would also be more effective." American and European experts on Iran say corruption is a major problem and many Iranian leaders have foreign bank accounts, though they are in Europe and not the United States. Eventually, if negotiations fail to stop Iran from enriching uranium or taking other steps opposed by the West, European countries might act against those accounts, various diplomats said. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #17 As Western governments debate how to punish Iran for its nuclear activities, Bush administration and European officials said Thursday that they wanted to avoid causing hardship or more anti-Western resentment in the Iranian public. Words fail. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-01-21 19:49 |
| #16 Let the price of oil go through the roof: It will help to ween us off the only thing that Islamic countries have to sell besides terror. We're already seeing a lot more interest in alternatives to muslim oil. Many of us would be happy to pay extra for alternatives. California recently passed a law promoting a huge increase in the number of solar panels to be installed, proposal is for 20% of state power to be solar in 12 years... I think you'd see a lot less interest in Whabiism and radical shiaism if they ran out of money... |
| Posted by: Sninese Omuck5021 2006-01-21 19:48 |
| #15 No need for them to ever attack us. Just keep rattling the saber, oil goes up, they make more money, our economy gets hurt, they win. As long as thier are people speculating in the oil market, these guys just need to get us talking about war, they will be sure to raise the price. |
| Posted by: plainslow 2006-01-21 19:00 |
| #14 #13: Had President Dhimmi Carter vaporized the city of Qom in late November of 1979, none of this would be necessary. Posted by: doc|| 2006-01-21 15:10 _____________ Doc: A nuclear-armed Iran, with its terrorist associates in Syria, Southern Lebanon, and Gaza, is Jimmuh Chartur's lasting legacy and gift to the world. |
| Posted by: The Angry Fliegerabwehrkanonen 2006-01-21 18:35 |
| #13 Had President Dhimmi Carter vaporized the city of Qom in late November of 1979, none of this would be necessary. |
| Posted by: doc 2006-01-21 15:10 |
| #12 haven't we had sanctions on Iran since...oh...1979? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-21 14:00 |
| #11 I am tending toward the good doctor on this. Sanctions are nothing. They do not work, and with oil money, there will always be a way to thwart the sanctions. I'm sure that the Chicoms or Russians would at the very least help the Iranians. The US is divided, so an overt military buildup and strike now would be a difficult thing to pull off. lwe should still work and plan on the fast track toward it. We can expect nothing from the EUniks, except more of Chiraq's nuclear blather, and he won't act until France takes a major hit or two, so he sez. Well, the clock is ticking and we are running out of time. Iran won't have plutonium in the near future unless they buy it from somewhere else, as Bushehr will not be on line. However, they will have a uranium bomb, if their UF6 centrifuges keep humming away underground. We need to bolster up and support the opposition, and we also, either direct or through proxies, cripple their cash machine, which means electricity and oil production and transportation infrastructure. The MMs take the cash and ignore operations and maintenance costs and upgrades until they absolutely have to. So basically they need to have their oil interrupted, enough to keep them paranoid and occupied. Who knows, if it is done right, they can turn suspicions inward and have purges and devour themselves. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-01-21 13:19 |
| #10 Syria first, Iran for the next administration. This need not play out as Iran vs America, The Thrilla in Hormuz. It is not difficult to imagine Iran supplying Iraq or Afghanistan a cassus belli, the response to which we would be happy to support. As Iran is putting Hamas in charge of Palestine, Iraqi Kurds could work with their brethren in Northern Iran. I would imagine lots of this sort of thing will go on as the public is provided UN focused diplomatic eyewash. The Iranians are no more likely to use their nukes to attack us than were the Soviets. Their only value is to bully thier neighbors and prevent us from attacking. As long as we stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran's behaviour is likely to assure that will be a long time, and we get rid of the Syrian regime, the Iranians are contained. |
| Posted by: Clenter Gremble1859 2006-01-21 13:14 |
| #9 Thinking of a post-war scenario, a unified Iran is a problem to the Middle East, for the same reason that Russia is a problem for Europe. It is too large and inherently powerful to "belong". For this reason, unlike Iraq, it might be better for Iran to be modestly, but intelligently, partitioned. As an example, the Kurdish northwest could de facto join "greater Kurdistan", while de jure becoming part of Iraq. The southwest Arabs could also join Iraq, which would balance nicely, their being 60% Sunni and 40% Shiite. Though this would deprive Iran of much of its oil revenue, but it has many other resources it could develop instead. To the southeast, Baluchistan is probably too chaotic to become independant; it might instead be absorbed into Pakistan on condition that the Paks restore federal order to it, with no autonomy. Baluchistan has many things Pakistan desires, so it would be no great burden to them. This would leave Iran reduced in stature, but far more able to be a member of the Middle East, rather than a dominant and oppressive force in that region. The regional advantage to this is in the formation of a Middle East Common Market, for which a free and democratic Iran, along with equally free and democratic Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, and several others would be more than able to compete with the EU in several ways. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-01-21 13:11 |
| #8 Moose, your scenario could be right. I do think the political situation in our country is such that GWB can't make the first overt move. What I do know is that sanctions aren't going to work, even if Russia/China allow implementation. The Iranians are wise to it already, and as we saw with Iraq, sanctions merely enable a new wealthy class. And all the leftist yahoos (but I repeat myself) will whinge about the starving Iranian children with the birth defects from the DU that we might use. While building a counter-punch, getting a discrete surge ready, putting together the diplomatic shell that is needed, my hope is that we're identifying and building an Iranian community that can rise up and help take down the Mad Mullahs™. I continue to be concerned that a big military strike by us will lead to a burst of mis-guided patriotism by the average Iranian and thus shore up the MMs™. Far better for us to gave them a shove and let a 'Patriotic Front for the Liberation of Iran' or some such to knock them over. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-01-21 11:54 |
| #7 My idea of "smart sanctions" involves B-1 Lancers... |
| Posted by: Chinter Flarong9283 2006-01-21 11:50 |
| #6 Sanctions are a diplomat's game. The don't work on Cuba, they don't work on North Korea, they didn't work on Saddam... At best, they buy time to prepare an attack. At worst, they buy time for our enemies to prepare to be attacked. In this case, they buy us time so that Israel will have to perform the attack and, if that spirals out of control, then we do the "cleanup," wiping the Iranian leadership and military off the map. If Israel attacks Iran, then Iran can only attempt to retaliate against Israel, otherwise they will force our hand to protect ourselves and the region/oil and we will be justified in doing so. And Iran probably cannot effectively retaliate against Israel. Thus our interests are best served by playing sanctions games and other delaying games until Israel strikes -- all the while being ready to follow up on Israel's strike. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-01-21 11:46 |
| #5 I don't think this was a "good faith" proposal. That is, the administration knows that we are talking about nuclear brinksmanship, here. Now is not the time to sound like John Kerry is doing the negotiating for us, unless we are just diplomatically treading water. So, what are they really up to? They know that no sanctions at all will be permitted by China, most likely Russia and France. But by talking sanctions, what are they really doing? My estimation is that the adminstration is just delaying while building up our defensive and offensive capability, but very discreetly. They have long since notified manufacturers of "surge" needs in production for certain equipment and supplies, that will take months and months to deliver. Pentagon contingency plans will probably have increased by an order of magnitude from those that were used for Iraq, incorporating a lot of the advanced battlefield systems that have evolved since then. Most of all, the concept is one of the "counterpunch"; in which we literally have to wait until Iran commits an official "act of war" against us. Only then will we be free to respond overwhelmingly, and with such intensity that their ability to resist will collapse in short order. It is a dangerous technique, and more than anything else it means that you must counter your attacker's first blow completely--it must not degrade your counterattack at all. In Iran's case, it means that we must assume that we can take out three salvos of 30-40 missiles, nuclear and conventional. A 100% shoot down of as many as 120 missiles, that are trying to attack several different targets simultaneously. If at all possible, we need to plot as many missile launch sites as we can ahead of time, and with their first "missle-alert-launch" (pre-launch), we launch our own missiles to take them out before they become airborne. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-01-21 09:54 |
| #4 Keep in mind the worst case scenario of maybe a million or more Iranians dead. There's the hardship we most want to avoid. |
| Posted by: Grunter 2006-01-21 08:32 |
| #3 With the notable exceptions of Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, nothing any Democrat says on national security can be taken at face value. They're like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. Their support will evaporate as soon as it isn't the wildly popular thing to do because they were never doing anything but posturing. Of course, one can understand why they would be against helping to provide national security; they're one of the major dangers to the country! |
| Posted by: mac 2006-01-21 08:31 |
| #2 Doesn't matter what, doesn't matter where, you always navigate back to your BDS baseline. If you were balanced, if it wasn't coated in your mental illness... but you're not and it is. So no one listens to you. It's beyond your control - we understand, that's part of the syndrome. ON topic, the efforts to focus actions specifically against the theocracy, wherever possible, makes sense -- there will be an "after". Byah's playing media whore with an eye to the calendar, he has to beef up his "profile", and making sure his ass is covered so he can play either side, "after". |
| Posted by: Joque Gloluger1600 2006-01-21 04:46 |
| #1 I am for total commitment, but I forsee a precision attack on the infamous $2,000,000,000 monument to Ayatoilet Khomeni, combined with threats to Qom. That would discredit the leaders who have been proclaiming "angelic" protection. The resulting polarization could lead to open revolt in the North and East. Once a provisional government was formed, the US could recognize same and play the same intervention role as the NVA in the Vietnam conflict. However, the Russians and Chinese would probably successfully pressure regime change before open US intervention. However, none of the above can possibly happen until Bush does a 180 degree turn on his attitude to Secularism. Islam means Submission means dictatorship. |
| Posted by: CaziFarkus 2006-01-21 02:51 |