">

Right Web

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

New Iran Sanctions: Following the “Yellowcake” Road to War

Iran’s still-unproven nuclear weapons program is apparently one of the few issues the entire U.S. Senate can agree on. “The time has come to impose crippling sanctions on Iran’s financial system,” wrote Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) in a letter this week that was cosigned by 90 additional senators.

 

The letter urges President Obama to call for sanctions on Iran’s central bank which, if adopted by the international community, would effectively cut Iran off from the global economy and jeopardize its ability to collect oil revenues. Accordingly, some officials have referred to such sanctions as the “nuclear option,” tantamount to an “act of war” in the eyes of the Iranians. Senator Kirk has apparently promised to introduce legislation that would force the administration’s hand if it neglects to take action within the year—a threat that carries a certain amount of weight given the initiative’s overwhelming support in the Senate.

 

Presumably the senators understand the potential consequences of such new sanctions. A blanket blacklisting of Iran’s central bank “would punish ordinary Iranians,” according to Inter Press Service, “and could undermine what had been a growing international consensus against the Iranian nuclear programme. It could also jack up oil prices at a time when the global economy is teetering on the verge of a second recession.” This is to say nothing, of course, of the impact on escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran.

 

The letter is the latest development in efforts by hawks to push the Obama administration to take a more confrontational approach to Iran. While the consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies is that Iran has still not decided to build a nuclear weapon—and a recent U.N. report has tentatively concluded that international sanctions are “slowing the development” of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs—hardliners like Jennifer Rubin and Fred Fleitz have insisted that sanctions are “failing” and that “Iran is on the brink of testing a nuclear weapon.”

 

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) released a statement praising the new sanctions proposal, calling Iran’s central bank fundamental to the country’s “strategy to circumvent international sanctions against its illicit nuclear program.” Rubin, on the other hand, linked the initiative to the supposed failure of the Obama administration to “[monitor] the results of our sanctions or [press] forward with new initiatives.”

 

Taken together, these statements seem to blur the distinction between international sanctions designed to curb Iran’s nuclear program and unilateral U.S. sanctions aimed at undermining the Iranian economy. This may well mean that neither the effectiveness nor the necessity of new sanctions is the fundamental thing to consider, but rather their political utility.

 

Sanctions, according to Paul Pillar at the National Interest, can have various objectives that may or may not overlap, so it is important to be clear whether particular sanctions are supposed to constrain, influence, or undermine a given regime. By conflating international and U.S. sanctions, writers like Rubin give themselves more room to declare later on that such sanctions have “failed”—and thus to advocate for more confrontational measures (like, say, regime change) down the line. “Those driven by this objective,” writes Pillar, “do not have any incentive to be clear about their ostensible objectives. In fact, they have an interest in being vague about them, leaving them more flexibility about how they can argue in the future that the sanctions have not ‘worked.’”

 

Indeed, Rubin offers a corollary to this logic herself, accusing the Obama administration of lacking the “leadership to push ahead and [failing] to provide an alternative to military action.” In other words, Rubin presents these sanctions as preventative of military action, even though their inevitable “failure” will be presented later as a rationale for war with Iran—which Rubin and AIPAC will inevitably support. Failing this, if the new sanctions are never implemented, they can simply blame the president for torpedoing a course of action that might have prevented war.

 

This playbook comes straight out of the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. By playing nice with “peaceful” measures like sanctions and perpetually shifting the goalposts, neoconservatives on the militarist fringe are once again leading us down the “yellowcake” road to war. But with at least 92 U.S. senators on board, they’re hardly as marginal as they should appear.

 

—Peter Certo

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


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.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


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.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share