Israel Matzav

When an incremental approach won't work

Imposing sanctions on Iran should be done in toto and not incrementally, even at the cost of consensus in the United Nations. Otherwise, argues Michael Singh, Iran will have enough lead time to take actions to ameliorate the sanctions' effect.

To avoid the trap of incrementalism and advance efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear weapons progress, the U.S. and Europe must think backwards. That is, consider what circumstances must be brought about to induce a change of course by the Iranian regime, along with the time available to bring about such circumstances. A cursory analysis of past Iranian shifts suggests that the threshold at which the regime will recalculate remains far off -- Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1988 decision to accede to a ceasefire in the Iran-Iraq war, for example, came only after several Iranian naval ships were destroyed in battle with the U.S. Navy.

Thinking backwards leads to the conclusion that the regime’s resilience, and the urgency underscored by the IAEA report, should lead the West to eschew any gradual buildup of pressure for bolder, less predictable, and faster-acting measures. By implication, our international persuasion efforts should be focused less on means -- such as sanctions -- and more on ends. If an ally agrees that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, that its success in this regard would be devastating for global security, and that sufficient pressure must be brought to bear on the Iranian regime to force its recalculation, then reasoning backward will lead naturally support for far-reaching sanctions or similar measures. If on the other hand there is no such concurrence on objectives, then agreement on “crippling” sanctions is unlikely ever to materialize.

Much as I agree with Singh's approach, I'm afraid he's ahead of the game. Russia and China are not going to agree to any meaningful sanctions, and that will prevent the UN resolution that would induce the Europeans to impose sanctions. The only way to effectively impose energy sanctions on Iran would be for the US and other sympathetic countries (other than Israel - if there are any) to station ships at the mouth of the Gulf of Arabia and prevent the Iranians from receiving refined oil products.

Since that's unlikely to happen, there's only one other alternative left to stop Iran from going nuclear: Make Ahmadinejad an offer he can't refuse.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:21 PM