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.”

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

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


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.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share