Wednesday, June 9, 2010 - 7:17 PM

The U.N. Security Council today passed resolution 1929 attaching further sanctions to Iran for pursuance of nuclear programs condemned by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Obama administration is doing its best to put a good face on a major disappointment: After sixteen months' effort, they have succeeded in delivering less international support than did the Bush administration for a problem everyone agrees is growing rapidly worse.
Sanctions have been the centerpiece of the Obama administration's approach. Secretary Clinton proclaimed last summer we would coalesce the international community around "crippling sanctions." President Obama more recently reaffirmed that sanctions would be "significant." Yet the sanctions outlined in Resolution 1929 are so modest that even the White House sounded sheepish in its announcement of the resolution's passage:
The resolution reaffirms the international community's willingness to resolve international concerns over Iran's nuclear program through negotiations, while laying out the steps that Iran must take to restore international confidence in its nuclear program, thereby allowing for the suspension or termination of these sanctions.
The Resolution does show the handiwork of Stuart Levy's superb team at the Department of Treasury: the Iranian Central Bank is mentioned, companies linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps are cited, and the lead scientist in the Iranian nuclear program is listed by name. But even though the number of entities ostensibly affected is twice that previously listed in U.N. resolutions, Tehran should be celebrating all it achieved.
Russia's vote was bought by exempting Russian firms from the restrictions. President Putin has announced the Bushehr reactor will come on line with Russia's continued assistance this summer. Russian Parliamentarian Mikhail Margelov, Head of the Federation Council's Foreign Affairs Committee even said the deal will permit deployment of S-300 missile systems to Iran, which the Untied States has worked for years to prevent. All this in addition to canceling NATO missile defense deployments and going silent on the strangulation of freedoms within Russia.
Turkey and Brazil voted against the resolution, Lebanon abstained. A treaty ally of the United States whose territory borders on Iran, and which President Obama visited to showcase his new approach to the so-called muslim world could not be persuaded by the Obama Administration to cast its vote with us.
And the Administration seems to have no strategy for what to do next. Sanctions aren't a strategy, they're a tool for achieving the strategic objective of preventing Iran becoming a nuclear weapons state. We're over-reliant on sanctions to deliver that weighty objective and need to be thinking much more creatively about how to impose costs on the Iranian government -- internationally and domestically -- for their choices.
When pressed to accede to his country being ruled by Macedonia, the Greek statesman Demosthenes refused, saying "I do not purchase regret at such a price." It could be that the Security Council Resolution will do the trick and Tehran will reconsider its current course. But I doubt it. It seems instead that we have purchased regret at the price of re-establishing Russian cooperation with Iran's nuclear and missile programs, demonstrating our inability to deliver both a NATO ally and an increasingly important rising power, and revealing that we have no cards to play except enfeebled sanctions.
There's a lot a complaining about how sanctions won't work, and I agree they probably won't, but absolutely nothing in the way of a solution. Some of this also seems a little inflated. Was Russia seriously going to break an agreement they had previously made (which by the way is for air defense missiles, not ballistic missiles)? Do you really think in the wake of Turkey and Brazil's recent agreement with Iran, hollow as it is, they would vote for sanctions? That would be a huge breach of faith on their part, NATO ally or not (and since when was being in NATO an indicator of actual solidarity with US policy, OIF, Isael, Cuba?). Not only that, but given whose side we inevitably took in the flotilla fiasco, why would we expect Turkish compliance when this presents a great opportunity to needle Israel without any real consequences to either party (they had to know it would pass either way)? There's also the lumping in of the canceled missile shield, which is mostly unrelated, and Russian domestic policy, which is completely unrelated. You lay out a lot of problems, but if sanctions are the weapons of choice what's left?
It isn't said outright, but this feels very much like laying the ground work for a military solution. Since we "have no cards to play," and with the lack of any other answers, I can't think of what your getting at besides using force. There's little discussion on how the sanctions are enfeebled, or the content of the sanctions. There's more discussion about Russia and Turkey than Iran, and it seems like a laundry list of related issues. However, this does not speak specifically about the sanctions themselves, or how this is somehow a coup for the Iranian government. If you are against the idea of sanctions in principle, then what do you propose?
This toothless UNSC resolution by US and its so-called partners is not going to stop Iran’s march towards nuclear weapons as US itself knows all too well. As long as such meaningless resolutions do NOT include Iran’s lucrative oil trade with China and nuclear reactor trade with Russia, America’s nonproliferation goals are going to be just a mirage in the desert.
But then America’s nonproliferation ship sailed into oblivion when US decided to forgive China and Pakistan for making this world a lot more dangerous place by proliferating China’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology to the rogue states of the world.
Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.
Read More
(2)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE