-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Daniel W. Drezner
Monday, January 9, 2012 - 4:23 PM
Share
It's been a busy week for Iran-watchers. The European Union is mulling a phased-in oil embargo, prompting Iranian officials to label the move as "an economic war" against Iran. Now Iran's Asia customers are trying to diversify away from Iranian oil. These expectations of future cutoffs, combined with pre-existing sanctions, are taking their toll on the Iranian economy in the form of dollar-hoarding and a free-falling national currency. Fareed Zakaria sums up the current state of play nicely:
[T]he real story on the ground is that Iran is weak and getting weaker. Sanctions have pushed the economy into a nose-dive. The political system is fractured and fragmenting. Abroad, its closest ally and the regime of which it is almost the sole supporter -- Syria -- is itself crumbling. The Persian Gulf monarchies have banded together against Iran and shored up their relations with Washington. Last week, Saudi Arabia closed its largest-ever purchase of U.S. weaponry.…
The Obama administration has put tremendous pressure on Iran on a variety of fronts -- far more pressure than the Bush administration was ever able to muster. This is, in part, because the pressure has been brought to bear, wherever possible, with other countries. The United States does not buy oil from Iran. But European nations, Japan and South Korea do, and if they go along with a new round of sanctions, Iran faces the real prospect of an economic freefall.
Iran's response to these moves has been a mixture of tough talk, empty gestures, backtracking on threats, and an acknowledgment of economic difficulties. It's therefore no wonder that the Washington Post reports, "U.S. officials are increasingly confident that economic and political pressure alone may succeed in curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions." Walter Russell Mead observes that, "public opinion in Iran does not seem to be rallying behind its unpopular government as the economic storm intensifies."
At the same time, however, Iran is trying to demonstrate that its uranium enrichment will continue unabated. Trita Parsi argues that overconfidence in the sanctions track will cause the Obama administration to rebuff any negotiated breakthrough on the nuclear issue. This leads to the obvious question: What's the endgame in Iran? Will sanctions "work"?
To get Clintonian, this depends on your definition of "work." One could argue that the current and projected actions taken by the EU and Pacific Rim might have been a wake-up call to Tehran that it's more isolated than it had previously thought. Iran is not merely facing the United States; it's facing a multilateral coalition that's growing stronger, not weaker. Unless potential benefactors like China take proactive steps to function as a "black knight," these sanctions really will cripple Iran's economy. The alienation of Iran's bazaari from the leadership in Tehran would ... let's say complicate the domestic situation in Iran.
That said, I'm skeptical that it will push the current regime toward making a substantive accommodation on its nuclear program. Based on how the leadership has treated domestic unrest, it seems clear that the top leadership is perfectly comfortable following The Dictator's Handbook approach to staying in power. More-powerful sanctions will therefore simply lead to more-powerful crackdowns. If Iranian elites view the nuclear program as the key to preventing outside attempts at forcible regime change, there's no way they'll compromise.
So would negotiation work? I'm skeptical here too. In part the problem is determining whether the Iranians are capable of negotiating in good faith. I don't mean that Tehran will act duplicitously; I mean whether the fractious regime can act in a coherent manner. Its behavior over the past week or two suggests otherwise. So does Zakaria:
The Obama administration seems to have concluded that the Iranian regime is not ready or able to make a strategic reconciliation with the West. The regime is too divided and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the ultimate authority, the Supreme Leader, is too ideologically rigid. So for now Washington wants to build pressure on Iran in the hopes that this will force the regime into serious negotiations at some point.
I suspect the Obama administration's hopes are more ambitious. They want the sanctions to be so crippling that Khamenei's ultimate authority comes under challenge, to the point where factional divisions open up space for a substantive change in the regime.
This might work, but I'd put the odds of this happening at less than 1 in 3. Still, this is the thing about instances in which economic sanctions are deployed. Even if their prospects don't look great, they're usually employed because the other options have even worse odds. For the next, say, six months, pursuing this course of action makes sense. It weakens Iran at a key moment in the Middle East, and it might lead to some positive developments down the road. That said, even if the sanctions work in crippling Iran's economy, they likely won't work at altering Iran's objectionable nuclear policies -- the expectations of future conflict are too great. At that point, the United States is going to need to consider whether it's prepared to pursue a longer-term containment strategy or alter course.
What do you think?
EXPLORE:INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, FINANCIAL STATECRAFT, IRAN, NONPROLIFERATION, SANCTIONS, UNITED STATES 
Despite the facts, I think I know how some people will respond
"The Persian Gulf monarchies have banded together against Iran and shored up their relations with Washington. Last week, Saudi Arabia closed its largest-ever purchase of U.S. weaponry.…"
"Iran’s top nuclear official announced this weekend that the country was on the verge of starting production at its second major uranium enrichment site"
Hmm we have very important oil producing middle eastern countries concerned over Iran's actions, we have blatant provocation by Iran trumpeting their ability to create materials necessary for nuclear weapons.
But if I had to bet money on it, at least 2-4 posters here will still ignorantly blather on about the whole situation being some kind of Israeli Zionist plot.
Frankly Iran's government wants a war too much to give one to them. Economic isolation and cold war style tactics will do just fine. Iran is bluffing. If they wanted nukes that badly they wouldn't be talking about it in the press.
Well to be honest what do you expect. Israel stands to lose the most from any 'peaceful use' Iran nuclear development.
Spood, I would be curious to know what you think the motivation is behind Iran's 'trumpeting' of their nuclear WMD capability development. Surely you must believe there is some strategic motive behind it??
@SPOOD conspirators, plots etc.
. . . are, of course, distractions from a sober and realistic analysis of what;s going on in the Mideast or any other area. That includes the incessant Zionist hysteria about global anti-Semitism, which tries to portray wide swath of humanity as driven by hatred of Jews.
This paranoia is constantly fanned by Israeli advocates to justify whatever Israel does or wants to do -- they are perfect match for the Protocols and Bilderberger people. It's an integral part of the Israeli mindset, and makes Israel impossible to deal with rationally.
Of course, there is a well-financed Israeli advocate lobby in the US, here are some of its pets
http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/J5100
This is real money and it's going to powerful people, and only fools would think it has no effect on our politics.
Israel is, however, more than just the product of its powerful lobby. It's an integral part of the American military/industrial/political effort to impose its will on and shape the critical MidEast region. That effort is now in terminal collapse. It started with the eviction of the Shah we imposed, and continues through the fall of Mubarak.
Israel, like Mubarak and the Shah -- is a gigantic mistake. It and our other moves have been neocolonial ventures that unite millions against us, and Israel is itself turning into a rogue force, just as former CIA pet Osama bin Laden did. Watch those settler fanatics, they are the real future of israel.
Americans need to look a Israel as what it is -- a very, very bad and counterproductive investment in a destined-to-fail foreign policy. We are joining them in international isolation and even ridicule. Our dangerous games with Iran are motivated by our delusional effort to defend this gigantic mistake that we inserted into an unwilling region.
Iran will not back down, no nation would -- faced with such aggressive, imperial challenges. We will end up uniting the nascent protesters with their government, and if a war ensues, it may well envelop the region and spread elsewhere.
Right on schedule, the stupid zionist conspiracy
"And when is US policy dictated by small arab countries? "
When isn't it.
They supply more than half of the world's oil. But since you insist on being an ignoramus, let me give you some examples:
Operation Desert Storm.
Sending US marines to Beruit
Sending military aid to Yemen
We have forces located all over the region (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE) at their behest
We make billions of dollars in weapon sales to them
We have billions of dollars invested in the region's infrastructure
Plus the existence of Lebanon is certainly threatened by an overly aggressive Iran due to its use of Hezbollah as a proxy force. The stability of the entire region is at stake with a nuclear Iran.
Israel has been under threat of national destruction from day one. This isn't any different. Of course it begs the question, wtf would you know what Jews or Israelis think anyway. Your responses are uniformly ignorant paranoid bigoted drivel. You are really trying to pull something from your ass to justify your position in spite of facts to the contrary.
Although Israel's existence might be threatened, Israel can respond to a nuclear Iran's threats with more in kind which kind of puts it in a much less serious perspective for them. Israel is the only country over there which actually CAN feel secure in light of a nuclear Iran.
Saudi Arabia and neighbors on the other hand can also be threatened with restricted tanker traffic, occasional missiles and a loss in the influence pissing match which has been going on since 1979.
>>Operation Desert Storm was to secure our oil supply, not to help arab nations out
Your your worthless opinion, not one borne out by anything stated or done officially. Liberating Kuwait was so much in just our interests in the oil supply that we had most of the Arab world fighting with us.
>>>-Isreal didnt want to occupy beirut....until the US was forced to leave
First its bullshit. Second, the Lebanese asked us there to help the PLO withdraw from the area. Maybe you should get your history from a source besides Stor
>>>There are many Isreali officials that state jews will not live faced with iranian nukes. Also with the exception of '73 Isreal never faced a true threat to its existence.
Except in 1949 and 1967. As for Israeli officials, you didn't seem to believe American and Arab officials about Operation Desert Storm, now you take Israeli ones at face value? The Israelis are bluffing as well.
>>>We have military bases all over the world, America is an empire after all. They are good forward bases
We don't force countries to put US bases there. They benefit as much as we do. So its more of you worthless opinion.
>>>---They pay for the weapons, how is that helping them?
We have the better stuff
>>And they have paid us cold hard cash, you act as its a charity
We don't have to do business there either. There are other customers who we can go to with less headache.
>>A nuclear Iran terrifies most people, they know iran doesnt have to nuke them just offer others a nuclear umbrella, and countries would no longer be dettered from gaining up on isreal since it will no longer have a first strike ability.
Now that is some real paranoid bullshit lying. Do you really think any Arab country would trust putting their protection in the hands of Iran? Iran has been trying to destabilize the region for years. How is domination by Iran not a threat to their existence?
They really feel so secure in the possible protection of Iran that they are buying up US weapons by the boatload. Maybe you missed that from the original post.
>>Wheres the bigotry in that? Scream bigotry its almost like a reflex for you.
Its easy, because you are a bigot. All you have told me is your opinion is based on Jews being a paranoid people and evidently the US is in their evil grip. Still working on that new draft of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Its great how you can never let facts get in the way of your rants.
Stop trying to bullshit me like your posts are anything other than paranoid bigoted nonsense. Everything involving the US in the middle East is part of your vast Zionist conspiracy. Its part and parcel with the nonsense usually spouted by the far-left, useful idiots stumping for the Arabs, and anti-Semites.
You even tried to weave an entire argument of a post based on the last name of the writer. Everything you write is about looking for Yids under your bed. You are annoyed that I call you out on it, tough luck.
There is never a reason to take you seriously.
>>Well to be honest what do you expect. Israel stands to lose the most from any 'peaceful use' Iran nuclear development.
Its nice that you put peaceful in quotes. Its obvious that Iran is deliberately playing up its potential for nuclear weapons here in a public grandstanding fashion.
Israel does stand to lose, but not as much as Saudi Arabia would. Israel has the credible counterthreat of nukes of its own, greater numbers of them and more advanced means of delivering them. Iran also probably doesn't want to accidentally turn its Hamas and Hezbollah allies radioactive anyway. So even to Israel, there is some inkling that Iran is all talk, no walk.
>>>Spood, I would be curious to know what you think the motivation is behind Iran's 'trumpeting' of their nuclear WMD capability development. Surely you must believe there is some strategic motive behind it??
Of course, but its mostly internal. Iran's regime is slowly deteriorating due to major demographic shifts. In order to solidify its power, they do as most dictatorships due in such situations, create an outside enemy. Someone to blame for the lackluster economy, poor international political position and to give the government greater excuses to stamp out dissent.
Plus all you have to do is see how Iran's Arab neighbors have jumped. Iran and Saudi Arabia have been rivals for influence in the region for decades. The posturing is their way to gain an upper hand. To garner prestige, and browbeat others into letting them have their way.
>>>He was with the CIA for almost 3 DECADES....knows his shit.
That is not always a great endorsement for being knowledgeable about world affairs. The CIA's track record has not been all that great in the last 50 years.
"This might work, but I'd put the odds of this happening at less than 1 in 3"
When has this ever worked?
Hi Dan, I think when we scrape away all the what if scenarios,
it sounds like you believe that any advancement on the issue of Iran's nuclear program would require a change at the top in Iran's government (The retirement or passing of Ayatollah Khamanai).
The question in a country as opaque as Iran is "who's in charge"?
How does the power structure of the other Ayatollah's shape out underneath Khamanei?
What is the relationship between them and Iran's Revolutionary Guard?
Which group is more beholden to the nuclear weapons program?
Which group (if any) is open to diplomacy?
Then they would have taken a less obvious course of action
If it were the case, we would not even be discussing the matter until after their first test. Then the point would be moot.
But this would show a greater degree of commitment of their resources and would also ironically naturally defuse tensions. If Iran already had nukes, the issue becomes irrelevant. There would be nothing we could do about it after the fact. Countries which really want nukes don't go out of their way to invite public scrutiny about these things if they can help it.
It has always been my point that Iran is so overly conspicuous in its action that it can't be seen as anything but a bluff. No other nation which has created nukes acts like Iran does. Iran has been milking this for all its worth in the most public way imaginable. Just like what North Korea did a few years back. The idea of nukes being more provocative than actually bothering to make them.
By playing coy, they can still garner support for useful idiots abroad who are willing to buy into the idea that their program is peaceful. Plus they can act belligerently and still not be seen as an aggressor since they haven't posed an actual threat.
Frankly I would be more worried about a quiet Iran than a noisy one. Obviously they are trying to bang the pots and get attention here.
According to this book - http://books.google.com/books/about/The_sanctions_paradox.html?id=N_7N_7hAHL4C - wouldn't the answer be "no"?
All they do is hurt average people who we want on our side. When are we going to face the fact that we can't control everything in the world and sometimes you just have to wait? American hubris is that our military power conquers all. Not really.
Do we want the average Iranian on our side?
What makes you think the average Iranian will ever be "on our side"? Their government has openly pursued nuclear weapons [i]and bragged about it[/i] for over a decade, and what has the average Iranian done to change that? Not even the "reformer" Khatami has spoken against the nuclear weapon program.
As they proved in 1978, Iranians have the ability to choose whatever government they want. To say that you're fighting the regime but not fighting the people who support it is a Rumsfeldian fallacy. Stop trying to distinguish between the people and the government they support.
It has always been my point that Iran is so overly conspicuous in its action that it can't be seen as anything but a bluff. No other nation which has created nukes acts like Iran does. Iran has been milking this for all its worth in the most public way diykitchenblog imaginable. Just like what North Korea did a few years back. The idea of nukes being more provocative than actually bothering to make them.
It has always been my point that Iran is so overly conspicuous in its action that it can't be seen as anything but a bluff. No other nation which has created nukes acts like Iran does. Iran has been milking this for all its worth in the most public way imaginable. Just like what North Korea weddings101 did a few years back. The idea of nukes being more provocative than actually bothering to make them.
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(16)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE