|
by Jim Holmes, Ph.D.
candidate At last – a voice of common sense, in a town where common sense is an uncommon virtue. Washington's confrontational policy, a product of both Clinton administration diplomacy and meddling by the Republican Congress, is partly to blame for the torrent of bad feelings that disfigures bilateral relations. Americans impose sanctions almost reflexively. Since colonial days American statesmen have regarded the economic weapon as a talisman that could work almost magical feats abroad. The War of 1812, the Civil War, and the two world wars bear ample witness to this misguided faith in economic coercion. That the economic cudgel rarely works has not diminished its popularity with the foreign policy establishment in Washington. Indeed, over a third of the world's 193 countries, some 75, are the targets of unilateral U.S. sanctions - most of them levied between 1993 and 1998. The economic embargo against Iran - the centerpiece of U.S. policy - supposedly discourages support of international terrorism. In reality, it harms American businesses and workers while generating frictions between the United States and its allies. All of this while producing no discernible change in Iranian behavior. Indeed, the sanctions reinforce stereotypes of America as an implacable foe of Islam – helping to shore up the theocratic regime in Tehran. To cut American losses, President Bush and Secretary of State Powell should allow the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) – imposed by the Republican Congress in 1996 as part of a legislative crackdown on "rogue states" – to lapse when it comes up for renewal this June. Until then, the administration should quietly cease enforcing ILSA. ILSA applies unilateral sanctions against firms – whether American or foreign – that do more than a trivial amount ($20 million) of business in the Islamic Republic. This heavy-handed law hurts American businesses prohibited from competing for Iranian contracts. One business consortium recently estimated the cost of the embargo at $19 billion in lost export revenue annually. This translates into a loss of some 200,000 well-paying jobs in the U.S. oil, aerospace, and agricultural sectors. The embargo also angers governments that are understandably mindful of their own constituents' interests. Unilateral sanctions against non-U.S. businesses reinforce suspicions of an overweening America in capitals abroad and tempt foreign governments – even staunch U.S. allies such as Germany, and especially France - to flout American policy on Iran. Many European businesses openly defy ILSA with official blessing. These ill effects might be tolerable if they brought about a change in the Islamic Republic's behavior. But Iran will not buckle under to America's will. The Islamic government – heir to the Persian Empire, which dominated the Gulf region for centuries - will not abandon its aspirations to supremacy in the Middle East simply to appease the United States. Indeed, U.S. sanctions actually buoy Iranian conservatives by perpetuating the image of an America implacably hostile to the Islamic Republic. Conservative clerics have parleyed the "Great Satan" into twenty years of political dominance. Most recently Iranian conservatives have used the specter of American cultural penetration to beat back the liberalizing reforms of President Muhammad Khatami – portending ill for the ultimate direction of Iranian diplomacy. ILSA could actually backfire by helping to bring a hard-line president to power in this June's elections. Khatami has already been musing, Hamlet-style, about refusing to stand for reelection because of his inability to make headway against the conservatives. Even Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – who has spent much of the past four years trying to hem in the reform-minded president—has professed alarm at the repercussions should Khatami withdraw from politics. So much for fostering a mellowing of the Islamic Republic's bad behavior. All losses, no gains. That's a strange way to run a foreign policy. U.S. diplomacy should be a rapier - not a bludgeon. Washington should respond forcefully, even militarily, when Tehran can be linked to specific transgressions such as terrorist attacks on American citizens and installations. U.S. officials should also signal their determination to keep a strong military force in the Persian Gulf to deter aggression against Iran's neighbors. But realism - something Republicans pride themselves on - demands that the United States abandon a policy that damages its interests for no good reason. To his credit, Secretary of State Powell hinted during his confirmation hearings that he would like to lift sanctions that have proved ineffectual. The Iran embargo fits the bill. Because of their tough-guy credentials, Republican presidents from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan have occasionally been able to engineer bold shifts in foreign policy. Their successor, George W. Bush, should follow suit. Scrap the Iran sanctions. Comments? Write us at letter@fletcherledger.com |
