This article -- entitled "The Sanctions Aren't Working"-- was written by Esdandar
Sadeghi-Boroujerdi and Muhammad Sahimi for Foreign Policy Magazine
on-line (7/5/12):
Only days prior to the official
commencement of the European Union's embargo on Iranian oil, Mark
Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies, penned an op-ed in Foreign Policy entitled "Battle
Rial," calling again -- as he has repeatedly -- on the United
States to step up what he admits is "economic warfare"
against Iran and its more than 76 million people. Economic sanctions
kill people -- as shown vividly in Iraq -- and may eventually lead to
military attacks that will kill even more. This is not "defending
democracy," but advocating war and destruction.
In contradiction to the statements by
the most senior officials of U.S. President Barack Obama's
administration, from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper to CIA Director David Petraeus,
Dubowitz asserts that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. He does not
present a shred of evidence or even a reference for his claim, which
contravenes even Israeli military and intelligence assessments --
notably that of IDF chief Benny Gantz and the former heads of both
Mossad and Shin Bet. Moreover, despite questions over alleged past
weapons research, the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no
evidence of the diversion of fissile material from Iranian nuclear
sites for non-peaceful purposes.
Although Dubowitz's approach has not
yet received a ringing endorsement from the Obama administration,
many in Congress have been more than ready to lend a sympathetic ear.
Dubowitz calls upon the White House to support legislation that would
blacklist the entire Iranian energy sector as a "zone of primary
proliferation concern." This legislation, in its attempts to
link Iran's entire energy sector to its unproven nuclear weapons
program, is an unprecedented move that seeks to deliver a knockout
blow to Iran by further eroding the revenues obtained through oil
sales, which account for some 80 percent of the country's export
earnings. It is these funds that allow the country to purchase basic
foodstuffs such as wheat and grain to feed the population, preventing
millions of households from being plunged into deprivation and
hunger. If one wishes to take Dubowitz's argument to its logical
extreme, why not just embargo the foodstuffs and medicine directly --
they sustain Iran's nuclear scientists and personnel, after all -- so
that they are incapable of furthering the technical development of
Iran's nuclear program?
Sanctions were initially supposed to
directly target Iran's nuclear program -- and then, as the net
widened, military organizations such as the Islamic Revolutionary
Guards Corp (IRGC) and its engineering arm, the Khatam-al-Anbia,
along with persistent human rights violators, such as officials of
the Ministry of Intelligence. However, the sanctions have turned into
an all-encompassing iron fist geared to the destruction of Iran's
most important source of revenue, the energy sector. Dubowitz even
advocates targeting Iran's automotive industry -- a sector that
provides thousands of jobs to ordinary Iranians with no discernible
connection to the country's nuclear program.
If Dubowitz's aim is not a diplomatic
solution, but rather driving an already angry and restive population
to the point of despair so that it rises up against the ruling
theocracy, he should plainly state so. But is such a goal even
achievable at the present time? The aftermath of Iran's hotly
contested -- and by many accounts fraudulent -- 2009 presidential
election saw unprecedented protests and the rise of the home-grown
Green Movement, which had been in the making for some 20 years. The
movement did not realize its goals because the opposition was
disorganized and did not have a comprehensive plan for how to
proceed. Its leadership and its advisers were quickly rounded up,
jailed, and silenced. The opposition, both inside and outside the
country, is now in an even weaker state. Still, the opposition inside
Iran and a significant portion of the opposition in the diaspora
reject foreign intervention and sanctions as a form of collective
punishment -- they know their enfeebled position isn't helped by
economic warfare and the threat of military attacks.
Although there is little doubt that the
hardliners around Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's office, the top brass
of the IRGC, and leading figures in the Intelligence Ministry will
continue to repress opposition to their rule, the constant state of
emergency will only benefit them and legitimize their raison d'être
in the face of an external enemy. The remaining oil revenues, which
flow into the country from oil exports to China, Japan, India, and
others, will stay firmly in the hands of the hardliners and the
repressive organs of the state. Meanwhile, youth unemployment --
which accounts for 70 percent of unemployment -- will rise higher,
and the quality of life of the underprivileged and retirees reliant
on government handouts for their meager existence will decline
further.
Punitive sanctions have a poor track record in achieving U.S.
goals. One should recall the clear failure of comparable sanctions in
Cuba as well as Iraq, where they eventually led to a military
invasion (based on lies and exaggerations) at great human cost.
Although regimes under such sanctions might be weakened in relative
terms to other states in the international system, such steps only
make them relatively more powerful vis-à-vis their respective
populations and civil societies.
In the space of a single article, Dubowitz also illustrates the
inexorable slide from crippling sanctions to military conflict.
Instead of considering the possibility of engagement, he ends the
article by describing what the United States should do if "economic
warfare" were unsuccessful: "The president needs to unite
the country in moving beyond sanctions and preparing for U.S.
military strikes against Iran's nuclear weapons program," he
writes.
The very language Dubowitz employs misrepresents the facts and
ignores the devastating human cost of the policies he so zealously
advocates. Military attacks occur not against a program, but against
nuclear facilities -- and they would be a clear violation of
international law, in the absence of a U.N. resolution and so long as
the Islamic Republic has not attacked any other country. Iran's
nuclear technology, moreover, is the result of years of research. It
cannot be destroyed by killing a few individuals or razing some
nuclear installations to the ground. There is also no such thing as
an attack only on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, as it sprawls across
the entire country, often close to major population centers. Thus,
any attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure will result in thousands
of casualties, if not more.
The Iranian government also shares responsibility for tensions
having reached this point. But it is not the sole party deserving of
blame. And despite unprecedented "economic warfare," it
will be able to continue its nuclear program -- albeit at the cost of
great suffering of ordinary Iranian people. A more balanced and
measured diplomatic strategy is needed if the West is genuinely
interested in ensuring Iran's nuclear program will remain peaceful
and cease to pose a proliferation risk.
Unparalleled economic warfare and military threats, on the other
hand, will not only destroy the prospect of democracy in Iran for
many years to come, but will consolidate an already authoritarian
regime and plunge one of the most pro-American populations in the
Middle East into economic destitution and apathy. Dubowitz should
ponder the consequences of what he suggests before so cavalierly
threatening the lives of millions of Iranians.
No comments:
Post a Comment