Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

New US Sanctions on Iran

Amid rising calls for preparing to strike Iran, the Obama administration imposed new unilateral sanctions on Iranian officials whom it accused of committing "sustained and severe violations of human rights.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Inter Press Service

Amid new calls for Washington to attack Iran's nuclear facilities if its diplomatic efforts at curbing Tehran's uranium-enrichment programme fail, the United States last Wednesday imposed unilateral sanctions against eight senior Iranian officials whom it accused of committing "sustained and severe violations of human rights".

Announced at a joint press appearance by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the new sanctions include a ban on travel to the U.S. and a freeze on any U.S.-based assets owned by the officials, mainly top officers in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including its commander, Mohammad Ali Jafari.

"On these officials' watch or under their command, Iranian citizens have been arbitrarily beaten, tortured, raped, blackmailed and killed," declared Clinton.

"Yet the Iranian government has ignored repeated calls from the international community to end these abuses, to hold to account those responsible, and respect the rights and fundamental freedoms of its citizens," she added.

The sanctions are the first imposed by Washington against Iranian officials for rights-related reasons. They come amid growing speculation over the resumption of negotiations between the U.S., as well as other major powers, and Tehran over the latter's nuclear programme, and amid increasing calls by Israel-centred neo-conservatives, among others, for the Obama administration to take military action if such negotiations do not soon bear fruit.

In a speech before the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) last Wednesday, Independent Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman praised the new sanctions, as well as the administration's success in getting its European and Asian allies to impose tough economic sanctions of their own.

But he also called for the administration to "take steps that make clear that if diplomatic and economic strategies continue to fail to change Iran's nuclear policies, a military strike is not just a remote possibility in the abstract, but a real and credible alternative policy that we and our allies are ready to exercise."

"(N)othing is more corrosive to the prospect of resolving this confrontation peacefully than the suspicion—among friends and enemies alike in the Middle East—that in the end, we will acquiesce to Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability," the former Democratic vice-presidential candidate declared. "If a nuclear Iran is as unacceptable as we all say it is, we must be prepared to do whatever is necessary to prevent the unacceptable."

Lieberman's speech, in which he also described "stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability" as "the single most important test of American power in the Middle East today," was the latest in a series by key figures here arguing in favour of military action if sanctions and diplomatic efforts fail to curb Iran's nuclear programme.

Two weeks ago, for example, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, with whom Lieberman has frequently aligned himself, also said Washington must prepare itself to use military force to prevent Iran from actually obtaining a weapon.

"If you use military force against Iran, you've opened up Pandora's box," Graham told a hawkish audience at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a neo-conservative think tank that played a key role in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. "If you allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, you've emptied Pandora's box."

"I'd rather open Pandora's box than empty it," said Graham, who also predicted that "a military strike by air and sea" could result in the overthrow of the Iranian regime without the need for U.S. ground troops.

Shortly after Graham's comments, Israel's U.S.-born and – bred ambassador, Michael Oren, strongly suggested in a Yom Kippur sermon to three influential Washington synagogues that Israel would attack Iran on its own if Obama did not do so – a message that was immediately and explicitly endorsed by the editor of the Weekly Standard and a major Iraq war hawk, William Kristol, who also previewed Lieberman's speech on the Standard's website, noting approvingly that it "should cause quite a stir".

The new sanctions, which are far more narrowly targeted than sweeping economic sanctions against foreign companies doing business with Iran enacted by Congress in June, were authorised by an amendment submitted by Lieberman and Republican Sen. John McCain to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010.

Obama had been heavily criticised by Republicans and many human rights activists after the contested June 2009 presidential election for not speaking out more forcefully against what many here believe was a fraudulent result and for the subsequent efforts to suppress the opposition Green Movement and its supporters.

The administration's reluctance to do so was explained in part by the priority Obama placed on engaging Iran diplomatically – along with the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany, or the "P5+1" – in hopes of reaching an agreement that would persuade Tehran to abandon or drastically curb its nuclear programme.

The administration feared that adopting the Green Movement's charges of fraud, or criticising the human rights record of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad too harshly would make it harder for his government to engage or, worse, trigger a nationalist backlash that would strengthen hard-line elements within the regime.

"(W)e …were very mindful of the messages we were getting from Iranians both inside Iran and outside Iran that we had to be careful that this indigenous opposition …was not somehow seen as a U.S. enterprise," Clinton said Wednesday.

But as the repression against the Green Movement intensified and after Tehran equivocated over a confidence-building proposal put forward by the P5+1 last fall that would have sent half of Iran's growing stockpile of low-enriched uranium out of the country in exchange for more highly enriched fuel for a nuclear plant that produces medical isotopes, the administration became less restrained in its criticism.

In one statement that drew widespread notice and approval among hawks and some human rights activists here last February, Clinton accused the regime of "moving toward a military dictatorship".

That assessment coincided with the administration's decision to lobby other key countries, notably Russia and China, to impose a fourth round of U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran – a watered-down version of which it succeeded in getting last June; support Congress' enactment of sweeping unilateral economic sanctions against third-country companies doing business with Iran in key sectors; and to lobby its allies to adopt similar measures.

The impact of those sanctions – and whether they will succeed in persuading Iran to accept curbs on its nuclear programme – is a matter of fierce debate here.

While Ahmadinejad has denounced them, as he did at the U.N. in late September, as "meaningless", other officials, notably former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, have urged the government to take them seriously.

Administration officials have suggested that Ahmadinejad's prediction that negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 will likely resume in October indicates that the sanctions are having the desired effect.

The impact, if any, of the sanctions announced last Wednesday on prospects for those negotiations is unclear, but Clinton extolled them as a "new tool that allows us to designate individual Iranians, officials complicit in serious human rights violations, and do so in a way that does not in any way impact on the well-being of the Iranian people themselves."

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to IPS Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/). He blogs at http://www.lobelog.com/.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Jon Lerner is a conservative political strategist and top adviser to US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley. He was a key figure in the “Never Trump” Campaign, which appears to have led to his being ousted as Vice President Mike Pence’s national security adviser.


Pamela Geller is a controversial anti-Islam activist who has founded several “hate groups” and likes to repeat debunked myths, including about the alleged existence of “no-go” Muslim zones in Europe.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Although overlooked by President Trump for cabinet post, Gingrich has tried to shape affairs in the administration, including by conspiring with government officials to “purge the State Department of staffers they viewed as insufficiently loyal” to the president.


Former Sen Mark Kirk (R-IL) is an advisor for United Against Nuclear Iran. He is an outspoken advocate for aggressive action against Iran and a fierce defender of right-wing Israeli policies.


A military historian, Kimberly Kagan heads the Institute for the Study of War, where she has promoted the continuation of U.S. war in Afghanistan.


A “non-partisan” policy institute that purports to defend democracies from “militant Islamism,” the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is an influential base of hawkish advocacy on Middle East policy.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Other than the cynical political interests in Moscow and Tehran, there is no conceivable rationale for wanting Bashar al-Assad to stay in power. But the simple fact is, he has won the war. And while Donald Trump has reveled in positive press coverage of the recent attacks on the country, it is clear that they were little more than a symbolic act.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The reality is that the Assad regime is winning the Syrian civil war, and this matters far less to U.S. interests than it does to that regime or its allies in Russia and Iran, who see Syria as their strongest and most consistent entrée into the Arab world. Those incontrovertible facts undermine any notion of using U.S. military force as leverage to gain a better deal for the Syrian people.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

An effective rhetorical tool to normalize military build-ups is to characterize spending increases “modernization.”


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Pentagon has officially announced that that “long war” against terrorism is drawing to a close — even as many counterinsurgency conflicts  rage across the Greater Middle East — and a new long war has begun, a permanent campaign to contain China and Russia in Eurasia.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Revelations that data-consulting firm Cambridge Analytica used ill-gotten personal information from Facebook for the Trump campaign masks the more scandalous reality that the company is firmly ensconced in the U.S. military-industrial complex. It should come as no surprise then that the scandal has been linked to Erik Prince, co-founder of Blackwater.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As the United States enters the second spring of the Trump era, it’s creeping ever closer to more war. McMaster and Mattis may have written the National Defense Strategy that over-hyped the threats on this planet, but Bolton and Pompeo will have the opportunity to address these inflated threats in the worst way possible: by force of arms.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

We meet Donald Trump in the media every hour of every day, which blots out much of the rest of the world and much of what’s meaningful in it.  Such largely unexamined, never-ending coverage of his doings represents a triumph of the first order both for him and for an American cult of personality.


RightWeb
share