Who’s in favour of sanctioning Iran?
November 10th, 2011 § 2 Comments
The following is an excerpt from my latest article in Al Jazeera English.
Not two months after the US’ highest-ranking military officer repeated calls for diplomacy with Iran, a key congressional committee approved two bills that would impose the severest sanctions that we’ve seen yet. Among their draconian measures is a last minute revision that would make it illegal for US officials to even speak to Iranian officials unless the president issues a special waiver and provides congress with a 15-day notice.
Obstructions to diplomacy and increasingly harsh moves against Iran recall the lead-up to the Iraq war, which was preceded by waves of sanctions and alarmist rhetoric justifying a pre-emptive strike. Not coincidentally, as the war drums in Israel and the US grow louder, “crippling” sanctions against Iran seem like a peaceful alternative. The mainstreaming of this idea has also resulted in less scrutiny of those who have been pushing for sanctions, resulting in a concealed playing field that continues to tilt in favour of the hawks. Now, as the already muted debate about sanctions is shifting to talk of far more militant measures, the balance of power in this tremendously uneven political landscape must be highlighted.
The players
The loudest, most influential organisations pushing for sanctions against Iran have an open pro-Israel agenda, regardless of their positioning on the political spectrum. The best resourced of all is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), self-described as “the most influential foreign policy lobbying organisation on Capitol Hill”. AIPAC lobbied aggressively for the recent bellicose bill proposals, featuring them and its lead sponsors on the front page of its website. Sanctions are “having an impact” and “more are needed”, the accompanying captions read. AIPAC is also a key backer of the push to sanction Iran’s central bank, a move that some Iranian officials consider an act of war.
Supporting Israel’s alarmist stance on Iran is a group of hawkish Washington-based think tanks such as the Foundation for Defence of Democracies (FDD). The FDD features several “experts” who regularly appear in news media and have briefed the US government. Executive director Mark Dubowitz campaigns for “crippling sanctions” on Iran’s energy sector and compares sanctions to warfare. “Gasoline sanctions are not a silver bullet”, he said in 2009. “At best they are silver shrapnel.” Inherent in Dubowitz’s language about Iran are frequent allusions to “killing” and other violent imagery. “The Iranian energy industry is now in a slow-motion death spiral,” he wrote in January – while pitching recommendations to “accelerate its demise”. To “punish” the Iranian government, Dubowitz agitates for a complete embargo on Iranian oil, designating the Central Bank of Iran as a terrorist entity and sanctioning China, India and “companies that continue to do business in Iran’s energy sector”.
Known to publicise the FDD’s articles is United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), which strives to market itself as a centrist group, but has well-known neoconservatives on its advisory board, including Bush administration hawks James Woolsey, Henry Sokolski and Mike Gerson. UANI takes sanctions enforcement to a new level by bullying and singling out organisations engaging in business ventures even remotely connected to Iran, while organising alarmist media campaigns about the government. But for all its focus on sanctions, UANI has also publicly endorsed warfare. In a recent article written by president Mark D Wallace and board member Frances Townsend from the Bush administration, the authors say that the US should “make clear” that it will respond to the alleged “Iranian plot” to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington with “effective financial and military action”. This, despite the considerable holes in US allegations about official Iranian involvement and the ongoing doubts being raised about the evidence presented so far.
Read more.
| Irrational Israel: ‘Iran has no bomb, poses no threat’
The Russian President has warned militarist rhetoric in the Middle East, and an attack on Iran could lead to a catastrophic war in the region. Dmirtry Medvedev’s statements came during the joint press conference with his German counterpart. Russia has been voicing strong words against an attack on Iran, following statements by Israel that a strike is more likely than diplomacy.
The UN atomic watchdog is about to report on Iran’s nuclear activities and provide evidence that Tehran has built a testing facility and computer models of warheads. Iran has dismissed all allegations calling them fabricated. Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi says Iranian bomb only exists in US policymakers’ heads.
I’m in favor of sanctions against Iran. In fact, I’m for making iran a glass parking lot with ahmadinejads ashes dusted over the surface. He’s a nutter, what part of “the USA (big satan) and Israel (little satan) must be destroyed” don’t you understand is evil? ahmadinejad has murdered his own people, rigged elections, oppresses women and thinks he’s bringing some islamic fairy tale mahdi into play. Iran has enough oil for energy to last them the next 500 years. They don’t need nuclear energy. ahmadinejad just wants it for destroying Israel and the USA. Are you so naive as to think ahmadinejad is trustworthy?