The following are excerpts from an
article by Hooshang Amirahmadi (head of the American Iranian Council,
and Shahir Shahidsaless. Though it was written earlier this year
(prior to the June round of talks between Iran and the P5+1 in
Moscow), its observations, though clumsily stated, are still relevant today:
The talks will fail if the P5+1 were to
insist in [sic] a disproportionate Iranian compromise to abide by the
UN resolutions demanding suspension of all nuclear enrichment
activities.
The failure of the talks will almost
automatically lead to two planned detrimental sanctions to kick in.
Effective June 28th, the US will enforce a new law that denies access
to the American market for any foreign company that conducts business
with Iran’s Central Bank. According to Senator Robert Menendez, the
new legislation simply says to the world that, “you can either do
business with Iran or the United States, but not both.” Immediately
thereafter, on July 1st, the EU will boycott Iranian oil, a
significant 20 percent of the nation’s oil exports...
In its April report, the International
Energy Agency (IEA) stated that, “[the] list of countries planning
to implement import cuts in coming months suggests Iranian output
could plummet to 2.6 to 2.8 million barrels a day by mid-summer,
unless alternative buyers can be found.” This level of production
would be considerably less than the 3.55 million barrels Iran
produced at the end of 2011...
There are even more crippling sanctions
in the making. According to Debkafile, an Israeli-based security
think tank, quoting official sources in Washington on June 4:
"In the fall, the US
administration will bring out its most potent economic weapon: an
embargo on aircraft and sea vessels visiting Iranian ports. Any
national airline or international aircraft touching down in Iran will
be barred from US and West European airports. The same rule will
apply to private and government-owned vessels, including oil tankers.
Calling in at an Iranian port will automatically preclude them from
entry to a US or European harbor. This sanction would launch an air
and naval siege on the Islamic Republic without a shot being fired."
The Debkafile report is in line with
statements on June 4 by the US Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism
and Financial Intelligence, Richard Cohen. While praising the
creativity of Israelis in offering ideas with respect to the sanction
regimes, he assured the world that, “if we don't get a breakthrough
in Moscow there is no question we will continue to ratchet up the
pressure." Wendy Sherman, the US negotiator, in return [sic]
from Iraq, paid a visit to Israel to reassure Israelis that the US’s
positions on negotiations with Iran remains unchanged, meaning, the
US will not allow Iran to develop nuclear bombs. The State Department
said in a communique that Ms. Sherman was in Israel to “reaffirm
our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security”...
[The Western] boycott of the Central
Bank [of Iran] has led to the depreciation of the Iranian Rial by
over 50 percent relative to US dollar, and suspension of relations
with the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication
(SWIFT) has almost halted Iran's ability to use the international
electronic money transfer system. As a result, prices have sharply
increased across the board, particularly for Iran’s sizable
imports. With unemployment rate already in the high teens, rapid rise
in poverty level, and the promised subsidies withdrawn, the
mismanaged economy can hardly survive another round of crippling
sanctions...
The question is what Tehran will do if
its survival is threatened. The US and its European allies seem to
believe that under such a condition, the Islamic Republic will
surrender. That would have been one possible outcome if Tehran
believed it had no other option. Yet, more likely than not, this
assumption can prove inaccurate, and all indications point toward a
different mood of thinking in Tehran - one of resistance to pressure
at any cost...Here are the reasons why:
First, even if Iran’s oil exports
were to drop...Tehran can still earn significant revenue from its
oil. Iran also has over $100 billion in foreign currency reserves.
These funds can help Iran to module [sic] through for at least two
years before it hits the red line of economic collapse. Meanwhile, an
Iran under threat of survival will speed up uranium enrichment toward
developing military capability if it indeed is bent to do so as the
US and its allies have claimed.
Second, as many public opinion polls,
such as Rand Corporation, have shown the Iranian nuclear program
enjoys overwhelming popular support [in Iran]. The nuclear program is
often equated with the nationalization of Iranian oil industry under
the Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who was overthrown by the US
and the UK. That episode has left a scar in the Iranian psyche that
continues to trouble Iran-Western relations. Added to this
nationalistic sentiment is the country’s culture of resistance
particularly to outside pressure...
And third, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Khamanei has in [sic] many occasions said that the nation’s nuclear
program is inseparable from its national right and dignity and that
submission under pressure is more dangerous to the Islamic regime
than resisting and risking confrontation with the U.S. Khamenei
believes that the U.S. is after regime change and holds that “the
end of U.S. pressure and intimidation will only come when Iranian
officials announce they are ready to compromise Islam and their
popular Islamic Republic.” The Ayatollah has also put himself in a
perilous position by appointing Mr. Saeed Jalili, Iran’s nuclear
negotiator, as his personal envoy as well, thus rendering himself
directly accountable for any menacing outcome.
Thus, in case of a failure [of the
negotiations], the Ayatollah will be left with only extreme options
in confronting the West. These options could include disruption (not
necessarily closure) of traffic flowing through the vital Strait of
Hormuz oil route... According to the same Debkafile report:
"Word of the US plan [about
introducing new sanctions] prompted a deliberately provocative visit
by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander Gen. Mohammad Ali
Jafari Thursday, May 31, to his forces stationed on the three
disputed islands commanding the Strait of Hormuz, Abu Musa, Little
Tunb and Big Tunb. … In Washington, Jafari’s visit was perceived
as Tehran’s reminder of its repeated threat to close the Hormuz
Straits in the event of a blockade to the transit of a large part of
the world’s oil."
Another possible action by the
Ayatollah would be threatening to exit the NPT [Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty], an option that is open to all signatories
of NPT by giving the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) a
three-month advance notice before pulling out. The Ayatollah can
condition remaining in the Treaty by [sic] the West lifting certain
crippling sanctions. Disruption of the Hormuz traffic along with a
retreat from the NPT could quite possibly trigger a tit-for-tat chain
of retaliatory events, ultimately leading to a military confrontation
that in Defense Secretary Panetta’s words “we would regret.”
A war over the Iranian nuclear dispute
is surely a road to hell for all involved ...
The article goes on to suggest that an
agreement might be reached that would have Iran commit to the
movement of its enriched uranium out of Iran and permit intrusive
inspections, in return for Western guarantees of an end to sanctions
and assurance of Iran receiving needed nuclear fuel plates for its
research reactor. Security concerns then could be addressed in an
atmosphere of defused tensions.
No comments:
Post a Comment