Thursday, November 14, 2013
"Obama to Congress: Give Iran sanctions a chance"
There are many aspects of international relations at work in this article on CNN. One of the most relevant to our class is bargaining. The US and international community have long tried to impose sanction on Iran to impede their ability to enrich uranium. There are a few perspectives on whether these sanctions have worked with many politicians calling for more sanctions on Iran. The Obama administration has taken some criticism for the negotiations with Iran but also received praised for the unprecedented accomplishment. This makes the deals even more significant since there has been no contact with Iran for decades. Many fear the negations could be completely compromised if the US imposes more sanctions or upsets Iran.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To impose sanctions on an already sanctioned state seems not unnecessary but ineffective. Nuclear weapons not only change the bargaining power of the individual country but changes the power of balance permanently in the region. Talks and repeated interaction historically has lead to better relations between two countries. However that being said the fear of nuclear brinkmanship should raise concerns in the region. Is one more country in an unstable region of the world a good thing? Certainly not for the United States or other western countries in the foreseeable future. Iran may want to pursue nuclear independence to open up negotiations and be taken more seriously as is the case with China. But if they were to follow the path of South Africa they may find a more welcoming international community. Like China and unlike South Africa Iran has had a history of foreign "imperial" aggression and manipulation of their country. That is not to say the apartheid regime of South Africa was not foreign, aggressive, or cruel, but in the end the government remained for the most part in tact during and after the transition. Iran then could very well follow the path that the Chinese took.
ReplyDeleteThe international community should however be concerned. Will the populace and government of Iran have the same international sense of the taboo on the nonuse of nuclear weapons. It is also an unstable region still suffering from the Arab spring. Once Iran has created the technology to create a nuclear weapon it won't be able to reverse it. It would be catastrophic if a weapon were to fall into not just a terrorist faction's hand, but even a radical militant faction bent using it on Israel or other even other neighbors. The international community could only hope then that Iran's leader would see from a logical point of view and understand the consequences of using such a weapon would have on them if an explosion happened in their region.
The international community has already offered the stick, and as been seen historically and in this case as well there are still other countries that don't hold up to the international standard. It comes at a difficult as the most of the international community is strapped for cash. However it should offer Iran more incentives and possible FDI with little to no strings attached for other forms of development. Who would pick up the bill or if its even possible may be unlikely and unknown. Sanctions have already been emplaced and haven't seemed to work. As well can the United States power to destroy most any other country come into question?
At this certain time and the recent political relationship we have somewhat built, I believe it would be foolish and very hawkish of us to rush back into sanctioning Iran. Given the domestic politics of Iran, it is reasonable to believe that Rouhani was elected as a moderate who was capable of mending relations with the west. Current political relations between the nations have thawed and as a result there has been closer contact and lessened sanctions. But to re instill vicious sanctions at this point could be detrimental to our interests in Iranian domestic politics. Failure of a moderately led Iran to come to terms with the west could result in a push back towards more radical and aggressive elements within Iranian politics. Threatening to use sanctions may be effective to demonstrate resolve in ending Iran's nuclear program, but quick placement of sanctions could be unproductive.
ReplyDeleteGiven that both sides "pledged to return to the table in 10 days to try again" (Landler, Gordon), I think a more effective strategy would be to used the tied hands bargain tactic. If he could convince Congress to set a timetable on sanctions for Iran far into the nuclear deal talks, Obama could turn up the pressure on Iran to reach a deal and also claim his hands are tied denying responsibility for any ultimate actions. I think it would be far more beneficial to ease punishment on Iran if only temporarily to see what type of negotiations we can achieve with the new rare relationship we have with them and their domestic political situation. Especially when recently "Iran has significantly slowed work on nuclear projects that could be used to make weapons" (Jahn).
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/world/iran-nuclear-talks.html
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/14/obama-to-congress-give-iran-sanctions-a-chance/
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russian-fm-iran-backed-us-nuclear-proposal-20885428
Sanctions have been very effective in the sense that they were able to bring about a renewed round of negotiations, and also had a hand in bringing about the downfall of Ahmadinejad's hardline regime. I would make the argument that, while a new round of sanctions would inflame Iran, and possibly end negotiations, the fact is that Iran is not in a strong bargaining position. Their economy has been substantially weakened and they will act within their interests to avoid incurring the costs of new sanctions
ReplyDeleteI think at this point in time sanctions would be totally outside the realm of possible solutions. If sanctions serve the purpose of influencing state behavior and signaling intent, we have exhausted their use. We already have Iran at the negotiating table, and through past sanctions we have signaled our intent. As Ben Raynor said, we will likely see continued negotiations with Iran provided we don't have any huge diplomatic slip ups during the process. It's now within their interest to negotiate with the US and it's allies.
ReplyDeleteMy debate was relative to this topic in that we discussed the benefits and detriments of sanctions. I've come to realize that economic sanctions are not favorable, especially in a country like Iran. With more sanctions thrust upon them, they will be more likely to resent us and join up with enemy forces to gain supplies and military alliance. Sanctions effect the local people more than they do the government. Countries, such as Iran, may not have the medical resources they need for common sicknesses caused by food or water poisoning, killing off many people for a disease that is easily curable with the correct antidote. I believe that added sanctions will have the adverse effect of speeding up Iran's nuclear development process as their resistance against the United States increases. It is doubtful that they will cease nuclear development with tougher sanctions. We've been down this road before with countries like Cuba and Russia. Do you guys think that Iran is slowly becoming another Cuba to the United States? I think the best situation in this case is a limited military strike on Iran.
ReplyDelete