The Obama Administration and Sanctions on Iran: The Farce Deepens
Please be subscriber 9,902. Just put your email address in the box on the upper right-hand corner of the page. We depend on your tax-free contributions. To make one, please send a check to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10003. The check should be made out to “American Friends of IDC,” with “for GLORIA Center” in the memo line.
By Barry Rubin
For more than a year I have repeatedly pointed out that the Obama Administration's strategy of increasing the level of sanctions against Iran has been a mess. Deadlines set by the U.S. government for September and then December weren't met. Even afterward, the government had not even established publicly (and it seems not even privately) its basic position on what sanctions should be. Congressional proposals for a tougher stance were discouraged and ignored.
Over and over again we were assured, apparently without basis, that Russia and China were going to support increased sanctions. With the Obama Administration in office now for 14 months, Moscow and Beijing seem no closer to supporting such a policy than they were when the process began.
Now there is more news. It is April and there are no immediate prospect for sanctions. Indeed, the issue is not even on the agenda for the UN Security Council this month. In May, the rotating presidency goes to Lebanon, a country in which Hizballah, an Iranian client, has a veto power over every decision. The Lebanese government has already declared that it will be supportive of Tehran.
June, anyone?
I will repeat: It now seems to be a race between Iran getting nuclear weapons and inadequate increased sanctions being implemented, too little and too late.
This massive failure should be crystal clear. Whether or not strong sanctions would have had a chance to slow or undermine the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons can legitimately be debated. But we're not going to get a chance to find out.
So what does it mean when President Obama tells the New York Times that Iran is working to get nuclear weapons, calls this effort misguided, and vows to stop it?
How is it misguided if Tehran has shown that it can get nuclear weapons and long-range missiles in the face of a declared Western attempt to stop it but which in fact extracts little additional cost? Looks pretty well guided to me, as well guided as are Iran's long-range missiles.
This was the first test of this administration's foreign policy philosophy and ability. The challenge was not necessarily to stop Iran but at least to make a credible effort at trying to do so. The president and his team have failed miserably.
By Barry Rubin
For more than a year I have repeatedly pointed out that the Obama Administration's strategy of increasing the level of sanctions against Iran has been a mess. Deadlines set by the U.S. government for September and then December weren't met. Even afterward, the government had not even established publicly (and it seems not even privately) its basic position on what sanctions should be. Congressional proposals for a tougher stance were discouraged and ignored.
Over and over again we were assured, apparently without basis, that Russia and China were going to support increased sanctions. With the Obama Administration in office now for 14 months, Moscow and Beijing seem no closer to supporting such a policy than they were when the process began.
Now there is more news. It is April and there are no immediate prospect for sanctions. Indeed, the issue is not even on the agenda for the UN Security Council this month. In May, the rotating presidency goes to Lebanon, a country in which Hizballah, an Iranian client, has a veto power over every decision. The Lebanese government has already declared that it will be supportive of Tehran.
June, anyone?
I will repeat: It now seems to be a race between Iran getting nuclear weapons and inadequate increased sanctions being implemented, too little and too late.
This massive failure should be crystal clear. Whether or not strong sanctions would have had a chance to slow or undermine the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons can legitimately be debated. But we're not going to get a chance to find out.
So what does it mean when President Obama tells the New York Times that Iran is working to get nuclear weapons, calls this effort misguided, and vows to stop it?
How is it misguided if Tehran has shown that it can get nuclear weapons and long-range missiles in the face of a declared Western attempt to stop it but which in fact extracts little additional cost? Looks pretty well guided to me, as well guided as are Iran's long-range missiles.
This was the first test of this administration's foreign policy philosophy and ability. The challenge was not necessarily to stop Iran but at least to make a credible effort at trying to do so. The president and his team have failed miserably.
RubinReports: The Obama Administration and Sanctions on Iran: The Farce Deepens
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment