In an editorial published in yesterday's Wall Street Journal by a motley group of spooks, including:
Meir Dagan, the former head of Mossad;
James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA;
Mark Wallace, former Bush-Cheney legal eagle and Bush Admin official;
Kristen Silverberg, Bush's Ambassador to the EU
Charles Guthrie, now formally known as "Baron Guthrie of Craigiebank", a former UK Chief of the General Staff (similar to our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs)
a new round of sanctions is proposed against Iran that would amount to the most severe sanctions ever imposed on any nation. A look at their proposal...and its effects...after the curly-q.
[NOTE: The hyperlink for this article leads to a financial website, not the WSJ, so don't worry about paywalls.]
In order to halt what they call Iran's "race to fulfill its nuclear ambitions", a new round of sanctions has been proposed against Iran.
The authors begin by pointing out the crippling sanctions already enacted against Iran, and admitting that these sanctions are having a real and measurable effect. One example of this effect is the Iranian currency, the rial, being in "free-fall". Iran is cut off from international financial systems through SWIFT, a bank that handles transactions between governments. It is cut off from billions of dollars worth of funds in US and EU banks. Its sale of oil, obviously its most valuable commodity, is severely curtailed by bans on imports in both the US and the EU, and significant reduction of imports by Japan. In short, Iran is not able to do business in the world, or to make much money, or to access a large chunk of its own money stuck in banks.
One effect of these sanctions is the desired one: to make it very difficult for Iran to buy the things they need to build a nuclear weapon. However, another effect of such crippling sanctions is that Iran is not able to buy the things needed for its civilian population: medicine, food, etc. At some point here, people start dying. Human beings. Children. Women. And now, in order to avoid war they say, we must pass even more sanctions.
Lets look at their proposal. As these are concrete proposals spelled out in the editorial, I will be quoting them liberally. I believe it will still be fair-use, though. So lets see what this proposal is:
First, Iran must be fully denied access to the international banking system. Current sanctions and Swift's action have made a difference, but they did not include all Iranian institutions. By designating all Iranian banks for sanctions, the global community can fully sever Iran from the international financial system
The sanctions already in place, and the actions by SWIFT, cut off the banks that Iran uses for governmental transactions. These other banks are small institutions, used mostly by Iranian expats sending money back home to their families. Cutting them off will do nothing to the regime in Tehran, but will severely harm those families.
Second, companies should be required to disclose any and all investments and business transactions in Iran. This can be accomplished by changing the rules of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.K.'s Financial Services Authority, and similar counterparts overseas. The moment companies are required to disclose their irresponsible business activities in Iran is the moment they end such business for risk of reputational harm.
Oh, is that all? Just a few changes to the SEC? How long will it be before I see a similar justification saying "this can be accomplished by changing the Constitution..." No. You can't just tweak financial regulations to suit your immediate desires. The government, over the last several decades, has created a global marketplace. It is not fair to American business to now threaten them with punishment for investing in that global marketplace. Items that can be used for the research or production of nuclear weapons are already under sanction, and must be reported by companies doing business in Iran. This point would further erode the rights of American entrepreneurs, and damage American companies, while doing nothing to the regime in Tehran. Its only real effect will be to drive more American companies overseas...along with their jobs.
Third, the world must deny Iran's access to international shipping, a move that would severely affect the regime given its dependence on global trade and seaborne crude oil exports. Aligned nations should prohibit international cargo shippers that service Iranian ports or do business with the Tidewater Middle East Co. (which handles 90% of Iran's container traffic) from shipping to the U.S., EU and elsewhere.
So to restrict "seaborne crude oil exports" you wish to sanction the company that handles "90% of Iran's container traffic"? Container ships are
not oil tankers, and vice versa. Cutting off this container traffic will result in yet more hardship for ordinary Iranians, and have no effect on the regime (save for possible civil strife, which I suspect is your goal here). Ahh, but thats not the end of Point 3: they also demand that all tankers and cargo vessels arriving in US ports certify that they have not carried Iranian crude nor docked at an Iranian port in the last 36 months. The penalty for failing to certify such would be a 10 year ban on that ship from docking in the US.
Fourth, insurance and reinsurance companies that operate in Iran should be identified and prohibited from doing business in the U.S. and the EU, and they should be precluded from entering into insurance and reinsurance agreements with any entities in the U.S. or EU. Insurers and reinsurers must also disclose all substantial investments in Iran. There are inherent risks associated with doing business in Iran, and if institutions are forced to assume the full ramifications of those risks, the allure of doing business in Iran will diminish significantly.
This is one of the problems of the global economy. Over the years, many insurance companies are likely to have made investments in Iran. This is because insurance companies don't care about political differences between governments very much. They only care about risk. For decades now, Iran has had a relatively stable government, with a relatively content population (meaning no insurgent worries on the horizon), and good credit. They were a good investment. Now you propose that we punish these companies, some of them probably the largest insurance and reinsurance providers in the world, for making good investments? This point adds nothing to point number 3, which would already stop all ship traffic to Iran. Enacting this point (#4) would have no additional effect on the regime at all; it would only have an effect on the companies involved, some of which are probably American, and so would negatively effect
our own economy, not Iran's.
Thats their proposal, as published. I won't quote any more, because I'm uncomfortable on the fair use issue. For the record, I only quoted so much of the article because they detailed their proposal in almost a bullet list fashion. These are concrete proposals, not opinion, and so I believe should be fair-use for blogs.
I am not a fan of sanctions. I haven't been since we killed a half million Iraqi children to punish Saddam Hussein. They may, eventually, if severe enough, somewhat accomplish a goal. But in the meantime, innocent civilians will die. Children will starve. The army, and the defense industry, and the nuclear researchers, and the government officials...all of these will eat just fine, and have access to stockpiled medicine, etc. It is the civilians who suffer.
As I mentioned, we are told that these sanctions are our only alternative to war. Of course, we know better. The current diplomatic effort by the Obama Administration, if successful, would avoid that war. Of course, it would also ruin the profit projections for all the military contractors gearing up for this war.
Here's an idea: how about we stop being so belligerent. How about we stop trying to kill Muslims at every opportunity. And how about we do something we never have really tried, such as give honest consideration to the contention of the Iranians that this program is fully civilian in nature...an activity specifically allowed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. How about we stop letting Israel tell us what the Iranians are doing, and do some intelligence work ourselves.
How about we sit down with the Iranians and talk, rather than demand or order. Tell Imam Khameini that if he will show us the evidence that there is no military dimension, and re-issue his previously issued fatwa banning nuclear weapons research or possession, and agree to not enrich beyond 20% and standard IAEA inspections/oversight, we will lift the sanctions. This would address our concerns and restore the ability of the Iranian government to take care of its own people. It would save countless innocent lives. And it would avoid yet another war, which we simply can't afford.
These spooks who wrote this editorial and made these proposals represent the 2012 equivalent of the Bush Administration push for war with Iraq in late '02 and early '03. Lets not let it happen again.