Articles
Weak sanctions epitomise a decade of failed diplomacy
28 May 2010
Insanity has been defined as ‘doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.’ When one examines how the West has tried to curb Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, this adage seems especially apt.
Last week, Hilary Clinton announced that the 5 permanent members of the Security Council had agreed a draft resolution for further sanctions against Iran.
She triumphantly proclaimed that this ‘strong sanctions resolution’ would send ‘an unmistakable message’ to Iran while the Defence secretary, Robert Gates, added that the resolution would give a ‘legal platform’ for countries to take tougher action against Tehran.
Sadly the optimism was premature. Like all previous sanctions resolutions, this one has been diluted to the point of impotence and in the absence of more robust measures, Iran will shortly be joining the nuclear club. This is insanity indeed.
The new draft resolution is patently inadequate for a variety of reasons. The proposals include a ban on countries selling tanks, armoured combat vehicles, warplanes and other heavy weapons to Iran.
However, this falls short of a total embargo on arms sales, including more sophisticated weaponry. Crucially the Russians are intent on sending Iran the lethal S300 surface to air missile, which can shoot down incoming fighter planes. Israeli politicians have described the delivery of this system as a ‘game changer’ for the region.
Even though countries are authorised to intercept ships carrying prohibited items to Iran, the inspection requires the consent of the government whose flag is flown on the vessel. This may be difficult to obtain, especially if the ship in question comes from a rogue state like North Korea.
The draft resolution calls on nations to "exercise vigilance" regarding transactions that involve the Revolutionary Guards. Yet as this is a non binding requirement, its effectiveness is highly questionable.
In fact, just about the only sanctions that might have had any bite, namely those affecting the import and export of petroleum products, were deliberately excluded. China, which imports 15% of its oil from Iran, would have vetoed any such resolution.
It is little wonder that Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Gabriela Shalev, recently predicted that punitive measures against Iran would be “watered down.” The tough talk on sanctions (the only tough thing about them) creates the pretence of resolute action whereas Washington now seems resigned to containing a nuclear Iran.
Yet the advent of a nuclear Iran would be an unmitigated disaster for the US and its allies around the globe.
Countries like Bahrain and Kuwait have large Shiite populations that are capable of being stirred up on Iran’s behalf. The governments of these countries might be forced to appease the nuclear armed mullahs in order to maintain law and order.
The threat of a nuclear arms race in the region is also palpable. In 2008 the U.S. National Intelligence Council concluded that Iran’s growing nuclear capabilities were “partly responsible for the surge of interest in nuclear energy in the Middle East.” One could expect this interest to reach uncontrollable levels in the event of Iranian nuclearisation. Under these circumstances, the non proliferation treaty would be seen as a sham.
Worse, an Iranian bomb would empower the country’s proxies, like Hamas, especially if they were the recipients of a radiological device. This would have a destabilising effect on the entire region.With sanctions proving ineffective, Israel’s government may feel it has no choice but to launch military strikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. There are grave difficulties with this option, both logistical and diplomatic. To reach Iran, the Israeli air force would probably have to overfly Jordanian, Turkish or Iraqi airspace, the latter being controlled by the US, while the IAF could not be certain of hitting all its targets.
One would also have to expect a serious fracture in relations between the US and Israel, whether or not the operation was successful. Relations have already suffered due to Obama’s craven Middle East policy but they may reach breaking point if Jerusalem is seen to defy the will of an American President.
Yet no Israeli leader can leave his countrymen in the shadow of an Iranian bomb, especially one controlled by hard line Islamist clerics. Such is the deplorable dilemma now facing Prime Minister Netanyahu.
A decade of lethally inadequate Western diplomacy has brought us to this point. It is still not too late to act but time is fast running out. The threat of imminent force, supported by a credible war plan, may force a re-assessment in Tehran. Without it, Iran will soon acquire a nuclear weapon with alarming repercussions for the free world.
top