“He’s the elected leader.” Those were the words of White House Spokesperson Robert Gibbs (later retracted) one day ahead of Ahmadinejad’s inauguration in Tehran this past Wednesday. Concurrently, American media circles reawakened to the unlikelihood of Iran meeting the Obama-imposed September deadline. What should be done when, months after a fraudulent election and weeks after struggling to put together a cabinet, a disordered Iran fails to respond to American diplomatic overtures?
For many, two words suffice: tougher sanctions, shorthand for the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. Consider recent comments made by R. Nicholas Burns, former Undersecretary of State and leader of Bush’s Iran strategy, “Draconian sanctions did not make sense in 2005 and 2006 but given the new weakness and vulnerability of the Ahmadinejad government, much tougher sanctions make sense now.” The assertion that regime instability somehow additionally opens Iran to the intended consequences of sanctions is problematic enough. But Burns further advocates that Obama be given complete autonomy when threatening, imposing or waiving the economic penalties and it is this condition that reveals much about its policy prospects.
Firstly, the condition is there to attract multilateral participation– if the US succeeds in winning allies for the imposition of a gas embargo, Obama’s promise of flexibility is meant to keep the coalition together. Continued loopholes are implicit and economic interests in diverse, participating countries are less threatened than might first meet the eye. Between February 1999 and June 2006, an estimated $80 billion + worth of foreign investment went into Iran’s energy sector despite the existence of the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA, originally ILSA), passed into law in 1996.
A quandry: For sanctions to stand a chance at being effective the targeted country must perceive that the costs of defiance are greater than the costs of compliance. Without the participation of China, Russia, Germany, the UAE et al. this calculation is unlikely (and even more so because Iran’s hardliners can be expected to use foreign pressure toward consolidating power). Yet gathering an effective coalition will require flexibility– if not in letter then in lax enforcement. So in both instances the sanctions stand to be neutralized.
More ominously, studies on sanctions (check out the Peterson Institute website if you haven’t already) demonstrate that their efficacy toward authoritarian and semi-authoritarian regimes is lost unless backed by a willingness to progress toward the military option. Far from a prudent substitute for the rush to war, sanctions can become a prelude– in this case we may be seeing a slow but sadly predictable march. -SW
0 Response to “The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act: Prudence or Prelude?”