Moves toward sanctions gathers pace
By Julien Mercille
The hawkishness of the Barack Obama administration's rhetoric on Iran has
increased a notch recently and once again pundits are speculating on the
possibility of an attack on Tehran; the ratcheting up of sanctions is
definitely moving ahead.
The US House of Representatives voted last week 403-11 to give the go-ahead to
some of its members to confer with their counterparts in the senate to come up
with a common bill ironing out their differences on unilateral sanctions on
Iran.
The proposed bill would allow a global witch-hunt by the US
government to punish companies worldwide that did business with Iran's energy
sector or that were involved in supplying Tehran with gasoline - about 40% of
Iran's domestic consumption is met by imports due to a lack of refining
capacity.
Access to the American market could be restricted for such "rogue" companies,
and apparently there are many: a recent GAO (Government Accountability Office)
report identified 41 foreign firms that had helped Iran develop its oil and gas
sector in the past five years. The New York Times last month revealed that over
the past 10 years, the US government gave more than US$107 billion in contract
payments and other benefits to foreign and multinational American companies
maintaining economic and financial links with Tehran [1].
"The world faces no security threat greater than the prospect of a nuclear
Iran," explained the top Democrat (Howard Berman) on the House Foreign Affairs
Committee. Tehran has consistently asserted that its uranium-enrichment program
is purely for peaceful purposes in line with its right under the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which it is a signatory.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid nevertheless agreed, declaring that "we have
waited long enough for the diplomacy to work. Iran is a festering sore in the
world."
In a parallel track, diplomats from the "Iran Six" are reportedly meeting daily
in New York to negotiate the text of a fourth round of UN Security Council
sanctions. The six are the US, France, Britain, China, Russia and Germany.
Building on the first three rounds, they would enact measures such as new
restrictions on Iranian banks and Iranian shipping, investments in Iran's
energy sector, as well as on the activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards
Corps and the firms under their control. Resistance from China, and to some
extent Russia, appears to be the last chance to block these moves.
The range of acceptable debate on Iran in Washington can be judged from the
fact that the Obama White House did put pressure on congress to hold off on
passing unilateral sanctions, but not to give some relief to Iran, rather to
give Obama more time to slap more symbolically powerful ones through the UN
Security Council.
The United States' ability to enact UN sanctions, as well as the effectiveness
of both multilateral and unilateral penalties against foreign and Iranian
firms, depends in large part on the relative strength of the American economy
globally. This is because the American market offers such significant business
opportunities that it becomes rational for countries like Russia and China and
foreign companies to maintain good relations with Washington.
For instance, Russia's Lukoil, which has significant exposure in the US market
with about 2,000 retail gas stations, reportedly stopped supplying Iran with
gasoline not long ago. However, the less attractive the American market becomes
compared to emerging ones like the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China), the
less leverage America will hold over others to steer them away from Tehran.
There is also tension between American business groups and the White House.
Many firms would love to see the rich Iranian market open, and there are
associations such as USA*Engage which lobby politicians to oppose sanctions on
Iran [2]. However, state officials have so far resisted such calls, believing
the message they send to Iran - that its defiance of American hegemony in the
energy-rich Middle East is unacceptable - to be more important than immediate
profit opportunities.
Western officials and uncritical mainstream media often declare that Iran is
defying the will of "international community". For instance, British Foreign
Secretary David Miliband recently said that China should come "on board" and
agree to more sanctions on Iran because otherwise Beijing would be "isolated in
the international community". The US State Department's William Burns said that
new sanctions would "send a unified international message about international
concern" about Iran.
However, the majority of the world supports Iran's right to enrich uranium and
opposes sanctions, and it is Western governments that are isolated. The
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which comprises 118 nations (about two thirds of UN
member states) supports Iran's right to enrich uranium and favors diplomacy to
resolve the crisis. Countries like Brazil, Turkey, India and Lebanon are some
of those that have voiced their support for Iran recently. Further, a majority
of the world's population also oppose sanctions and military strikes on Iran,
according to a major BBC poll released a couple of years ago. Surveying 32,000
people in 31 countries, it found that even if Iran continued to produce nuclear
fuel, 57% of people favored using only diplomacy (43%) or no pressure on Iran
(14%); only 26% favored economic sanctions and 8% a military strike [3].
But Western governments still claim that Tehran is defying "the world" if it
refuses to obey them.
Former US assistant secretary of State Richard Boucher was asked in 2006
whether the way Washington treated Iran and India was problematic. His reply:
"Is there a double-standard? Yeah. There should be." [4]
Obama is solidifying the double standard, finalizing George W Bush's India-US
nuclear deal, which was assessed as a "non-proliferation disaster" by the
US-based Arms Control Association. The agreement undermines the NPT because it
allows nuclear trade with India even though Delhi is not a NPT member. The deal
lifts a three-decade US moratorium and will assist India's military nuclear
program through the provision of nuclear fuel and sensitive technologies.
Obama has just concluded a part of the agreement that will enable India to
reprocess US-supplied nuclear fuel. Reprocessing involves managing components
of spent nuclear fuel, and potentially involves extracting plutonium that can
be used to make bombs - and even if the technology is used for civilian
applications, it can potentially be transferred to military projects. Further,
the deal exacerbates nuclear tensions with Pakistan and fuels the regional arms
race.
Obama is also considering more aggressive policies toward Iran. In addition to
declaring in the administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that it is
reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran, his administration is
contemplating Prompt Global Strike, a new weapon that is essentially a large
conventional warhead carried by a long-range missile to reach targets around
the globe, such as Iran's nuclear facilities. Obama has requested $250 million
from congress to explore such alternatives further.
Notes
1. Ron Nixon, US Lists Companies Aiding Iran's Energy Projects, New York Times,
April 22, 2010. Jo Becker and Ron Nixon, US Enriches Companies Defying its
Policy on Iran, New York Times, March 6, 2010.
2. Click here.
3. Declining Support for Tough Measures against Iran's Nuclear Program. BBC
World Service Poll, March 2008.
4. US Says Nuclear Double-Standard on Iran Justified. Reuters, September 11,
2006.
Julien Mercille is lecturer at University College Dublin, Ireland. He
specializes in US foreign policy and geopolitics. He can be reached at jmercille@gmail.com.
(Copyright 2010 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
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
