How Sanctions Can Work With Iran (Michael Rubin)

Pundicity/Miichael Rubin ^ | Dec. 15, 2010 | Michael Rubin

[nuconvert]

-Excerpt-

(on engagement with Iran)The second issue is with regard to with whom we engage. Many people talk about different Iranian power centres. The fact of the matter is, however, that we shouldn't be engaging with people who don't have power over the decision making in Iran. It's not enough to say 'Well, we engaged with this diplomat, but the Revolutionary Guard did this, so we can't blame Iran for its lack of sincerity'. Either we're engaging with the wrong people, or Iran is being insincere. What I do notice is that while the Americans seem to celebrate meeting with the under secretary of the foreign ministry, when the president of Malawi goes to Iran, he meets with the Supreme Leader.

So I would argue that we shouldn't be engaging until we're able to engage with the power holders in Iran, and that is the office of the Supreme Leader and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. The diplomats are meaningless.

-Excerpt-

What would the impact of a nuclear Iran be on the region?

excerpt-

For Israel, it's seen as an existential threat. Now I don't think that Iran is going to take a nuclear weapon and drop it on Israel. But the Israelis have a point, however, when people say that Iran isn't suicidal and they respond: 'Look, what happens if you have a situation like you did in Romania, when in the last days of the Ceausescu regime, the security services had turned and basically everyone knew that within a day or two the regime was going to end'. If you had an analogous situation in Iran, where the Islamic Republic was about to fall, what is to stop the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp from launching a nuclear weapon at Israel in pursuit of its ideological goals, knowing that the regime is going to be gone the next day anyway and that the world isn't going to retaliate against a country that has just had regime change? That's where the idea of mutually assured destruction doesn't hold up.

What concerns me more is what happens domestically in Iran. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it's safe to assume that the Revolutionary Guard is going to have control of that nuclear weapon, and more specifically the more ideologically pure and loyal elements of the Revolutionary Guard are going to have control of that weapon.

Now let's look at the issue of succession. Traditionally, nuclear powers moderate with time when they understand the responsibility of having a nuclear arsenal. In Iran's case, while the Iranian people might be moderate, if the Revolutionary Guard controls the nuclear arsenal, and if Supreme Leader Ali Khomeini dies, it's safe to assume that the Revolutionary Guard is going to have a veto power over the next Supreme Leader. In this case, instead of creating a cycle of moderation, this would create a cycle of radicalization, which could adversely affect domestic society inside Iran, as well as Iranian behavior toward its neighbours. This is because with the nuclear weapon, Iran would just become increasingly confident.

I'd also argue that what causes war in the Middle East isn't oil, it's not shortages of water. What it is, is when one side is over-confident and blunders into a conflict. I worry much less about the United States launching a strike on Iran's nuclear programme than I do about an overconfident Iran that misjudges a red line and sets us down a cascade into conflict.

[Joe Boucher]

With allies like Germany and France and throw in Russia and Iran will get anything it wants despite any embargo.
Just grow a set and bomb Iran into submission.
Would take about three crusie missiles with small but relevant nukes.

[Netz]

Either we're engaging with the wrong people, or Iran is being insincere

INSINCERE??????????? Did the author just step off the plane with Neville Chamberlain in 1938??? Where do statements like this come from? Is it innate naivete or just plain stupidity? Do people actual believe that diplomacy will work with Thugocracies like Iran? How unbelieveably stupid! I can't belive suckers like the author (and the State Dept.) are actually living, breathing, THINKING human beings!!!

[WayneS]

Sanctions won’t work.

Sanctions NEVER work.

Sanctions are just more UN BS.

[WayneS]

The IRANIANS? Insincere?

I’m shocked! SHOCKED I tell you!

[Netz]

After 31 years of the Ayatollahs in power in Iran.
After 10 years of public Iranian statements.
After 36 million sanctions.
After 75 million threats.
After 3 billion condemnations.

Iran continues to build A-Bombs - will it be like North Korea in the end or worse?

[nuconvert]

“INSINCERE??????????? Did the author just step off the plane with Neville Chamberlain in 1938??? Where do statements like this come from? Is it innate naivete or just plain stupidity? “

The author is probably the most knowledgeable person currently writing on Iran & foreign policy.
Knowing that, you need to read the sentence differently...he is saying that the Administration & the State Dept are being naive or stupid, because obviously, the Iranians involved ARE insincere.

[Netz]

OK, perhaps I misread the comments. Even using the word insincere is rediculous. The Iranians are the most dangerous regime on the planet, ok, besides N. Korea. Thanks.

[GonzoGOP]

The only thing an embargo will do is slow down how fast Iran rebuilds after the nuclear facilities have been bombed to rubble. It is too late to stop them now using only embargoes. They have gotten past the point where they need to import stuff for the nukes themselves. They just need time to finish up the job.

As long as the world needs oil a general embargo, designed to collapse their economy, against Iran would be impossible.