The UN Security Council resolution passed on Saturday which places additional sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program is quickly becoming part of a pattern we are all too familiar with. Iran fails to back down on its quest to enrich uranium; the council responds with sanctions; Iran is defiant, meeting none of the conditions to have the sanctions lifted after which more sanctions are imposed.
Like so many other historical sanctions, Saturday’s resolution penalizes a country’s institutions beyond the original issue or the crux of the problem. In this case, of course, the problem is Iran’s nuclear intentions. The text of the sanctions calls on nations and international financial institutions to restrict new grants, credits and loans to Iran, a request the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund will probably heed. An embargo on all conventional weapons Iran can sell and the freezing of the foreign assets of 28 individuals, institutions and companies further isolates Iran from international financing.
However, while the latest sanctions are moderately tougher than their predecessors imposed in December, they are still minor. They are a compromise between the stronger measures favored by the United States and the Europeans and the softer approach advocated by Russia and China. Resolution 1747 may affect Iran’s economy but does not touch its oil industry which ranks fourth in the world. Chances and possibilities for a way out are still open. That the council says all sanctions will be suspended if Iran halts enrichment and makes clear that Tehran can still accept a package of economic incentives and political rewards offered last year if it complies with the council’s demands keeps any alternative to conflict squarely on the table. The issue now is whether the council will follow up on its threat to impose more sanctions or whether Iran will comply. Nobody wants the situation to get totally out of hand. Reports that the Bush administration could be planning a military strike on Tehran for its nuclear program and for its alleged role in supporting the Iraqi insurgency do not find much support with the American public that surely does not want armed conflict with Iran or to have Tehran added to the list of nations the US is already in conflict with. Of course, the legality of any attack against Iran would be hard to establish without clear evidence and clear evidence is not easy to come by. No one can forget the false evidence used to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Nobody wants to arrive at the point Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei spoke of — that Iran would carry on its nuclear activities outside international regulations if faced with additional sanctions. For now the sanctions have a greater psychological than material effect. But this could change in the future. Iran will face stricter sanctions each time it ignores a Security Council deadline to suspend uranium enrichment. The fallout, as we know from Iraq sanctions, will not be limited to Iran or the region. A way out must be found.
