Opinions | Columnists
Are sanctions futile against Iran?
It is now rather clear that Tehran is pursuing military programmes as far as its nuclear plans are concerned.
- By Joseph A. Kechichian, Special to Gulf News
- Published: 00:53 March 6, 2008
-
UN council approves new sanctions on Iran
UN council approves new sanctions on Iran over nuclear activity
-
Ahmadinejad shrugs off fresh sanctions
Ahmadinejad shrugs off fresh sanctions
Iran and the United States share long-term interests, which are geopolitical in nature and substance, notwithstanding the zeal that followed the 1979 Revolution - a seldom forgotten saga that saw American diplomats held hostage for 444 days.
Given this painful legacy, the two countries should possess little in common, but appearances can be deceiving. Washington, directly or through its Israeli proxy, could even clash with Iran because the latter is determined to acquire nuclear weapons.
Still, political differences should not be confused for permanent enmities, especially when the stakes are so high. In fact, it is now crystal clear that the primary beneficiary of the American attacks against Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003, was the Islamic Republic.
Tehran was literally handed the defeat of its erstwhile enemies, the Taliban in Kabul and the Baathist regime in Baghdad, on a silver platter. Equally important, this rise of Iran further meant that all Arab Gulf States were more or less embedded under the American security umbrella, for the foreseeable future.
Given such geopolitical realities, what is one to make of the latest United Nations Security Council sanctions against Iran?
Third package
It may be useful to note that these latest sanctions are the third such package imposed on Iran, once again targeting several individuals who are allegedly involved in the country's nuclear weapons programme.
UN Resolution 1803 imposed travel restrictions on Iranians suspected of involvement in the nuclear weapons agenda, issued clear warnings to several banks that allegedly channel financial transactions for identified personnel, imposed severe penalties, and requested strict compliances with iron-clad directives.
Two Iranian banks, Bank Melli and Bank Saderat, were mentioned by name for stricter controls and UN member-states were encouraged to deny export credit guarantees that ostensibly could be used to finance nuclear programmes.
Resolution 1803 also granted the right to search ships and planes suspected of carrying cargoes that could be banned under international rules.
Interestingly, while all five permanent members of the Security Council approved the previous sanctions, four non-permanent members - South Africa, Indonesia, Libya and Vietnam - hesitated last January.
They questioned the need for further measures because, more than a few interlocutors advanced, all previous initiatives ended in abject failures.
None were deemed persuasive enough for Tehran to abandon its acknowledged nuclear programmes, including the uranium enrichment plan ostensibly geared for civilian purposes.
Last Monday, the Security Council voted 14-0 against Iran. Only Indonesia abstained because, its delegate opined, Iran was cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Jakarta now believes that additional sanctions would hardly alter the Iranian mindset, which is probably correct, and which comes as no surprise within Non-Aligned nations' preferences.
This lone abstention may not move the five permanent members of the council that, along with Germany in the so-called P5+1 group, declared that they were committed to finding a negotiated settlement in the current stand off with Iran.
In a classic carrot and stick approach, the P5+1 proposed to offer Iran "substantial opportunities for political, security and economic benefits", without revealing what they might be. Jakarta's analysis was probably more accurate since these types of ideas first floated two years ago with no concrete changes.
Not surprisingly, Iran perceived this litany of sanctions as being nothing more than an "unjust and irrational decision on Iran's peaceful nuclear programme". Its envoy in New York, Mohammad Khazaee, declared that "there has never been, nor will there ever be, guarantees that our needs for fuel will be completely provided by foreign sources".
While this was an artful Iranian response, Resolution 1803 targeted more than the nuclear programme, even if it was much weaker than its sponsors wished for. Reportedly, the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, lobbied Thabo Mbeki, his South African counterpart, during his last visit to South Africa a few days ago.
Earlier, the French took a hardline position on Iran, which does not leave a lot of wiggle room. Consequently, supporting the IAEA was a minimum effort, and in Pretoria's case, Mbeki went along, although one wonders at what price.
Likewise, Washington placed a great deal of influence on several countries, but in the wake of the 2007 optimistic US intelligence estimate, which concluded that Iran had suspended some of its nuclear activities in 2003, how many voted out of conviction?
Importantly, the IAEA contradicted US estimates, illustrating that the Iranian weaponisation efforts continued until January 2004. Perhaps even longer.
It is now rather clear, as reported by several diplomats who attended recent IAEA briefings, that Iran is pursuing military programmes as far as its nuclear plans were concerned. Various news reports confirmed that the IAEA showed evidence that Iran was keenly interested in a design for a "spherical warhead" suitable for the Shahab-3 missile.
Presumably, such a device would explode at a height of 600 metres, which excludes either a chemical or even a biological weapon. By deduction, IAEA officials concluded that such a device was meant to deliver a nuclear weapon.
Which brings us back to square one. Which sanctions initiatives will prevent Iran from acquiring such equipment? How long will it be before Tehran joins the nuclear club? When will the international community address this critical issue? Ultimately, when will the United States and Iran accept each others' preponderance in the region, without resorting to violent clashes?
Dr Joseph A. Kechichian is a commentator and author of several books on Gulf affairs.
Share this article
Related Articles
Popular in Opinions
-
Opinions
Speak Your Mind: Cyberbullying
How can we protect our children from being Cyber bullied?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Deal between US, India would provide impetus
If these two could agree, there would be real hope for progress in Copenhagen
-
Time for Irish to move on
The obsession with the Henry handball threatens to harm football far more than what Henry himself did
-
US and India should cooperate in space
Leaders must focus on a big idea that could lift relations into a higher orbit
