Israel Matzav

Shocka: 'Crippling sanctions' won't have much effect on Iran

You probably could have guessed this: Those 'crippling sanctions' that Secretary of State Clinton has been waving at Iran are unlikely to have any effect on it. And you can probably guess at least some of the reasons why (Hat Tip: Hot Air):

Effective sanctions, say Administration officials, require participation by Iran's key trading partners. That's a problem, since neither Russia nor China is convinced that there's an imminent danger of Iran producing nuclear weapons. Coalition of the willing–style sanctions of the sort envisaged by the congressional legislation may have limited impact because they're unlikely to be implemented by neighbors such as Turkey and Iraq. And the use of naval power to enforce a blockade could easily provoke a war that the U.S. military is eager to avoid.

But even if "crippling sanctions" were somehow imposed, Tehran still might not back down. "If it were possible to choke off the gasoline supply into Iran, the likelihood is that Iran's existing refinery capacity would be used first and foremost to ensure that the needs of the security forces and the regime are taken care of," says Dr. Gary Sick, a Columbia University professor and former National Security Council Iran specialist. "Those who are going to suffer most will be the ordinary Iranians with whom we sympathize. You can argue that this might spur them to revolt, but more likely is that if their fuel rations are suddenly cut in half, ordinary Iranians will be very upset with the West."

"The economic well-being of the Iranian people has never been a first-tier priority for the Iranian regime," says Carnegie Endowment Iran analyst Karim Sadjadpour. "The last three decades have shown us that this regime is willing to endure tremendous hardship rather than compromise for reasons of economic or political expediency."

So what's the answer? There's only one answer that has a chance to work. And it's not sanctions.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:42 AM