Living & Arts

End Iran's sanctions

In print | April 10, 2008

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, the tenor of relations between Washington and Tehran has been tense, to say the least. In light of efforts by the U.S. State Department, The Economist and Amnesty International to censure the Iranian government for its litany of human right abuses, coupled with the recent revelation that Iran intends to open a new uranium enrichment plan within one year, such strained relations are no surprise to international observers. With the second round of Iranian parliamentary elections on April 25, however, the time has come to acknowledge that the present U.S. strategy of embargoes and antagonism has failed. The ineffectiveness of America’s unilateral sanctions on Iran is well documented and widely acknowledged, except by members of the American government. Following the passage of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, which put an end to all American economic engagement with Iran, the European Union has come to fill the void left behind by America, becoming Iran’s primary trading partner. The logic behind Iran’s decision to negotiate with members of the E.U. while simultaneously rejecting cooperation with the United States is very clear: through the imposition of harsh sanctions, the United States has systematically alienated not only the Iranian government, but also the Iranian people, of whom 93 percent expressed unfavorable views of the current United States government, according to one of the few available surveys of public opinion in Iran, conducted last year by WorldPublicOpinion.org in partnership with Search for Common Ground.

The Iranian government’s belligerence is fundamentally rooted in its perceived insecurity within the international system. The Iranian government is precariously wedged between the hostile American-occupied Iraq and the equally hostile Sunni Afghanistan, with America engaging in a containment strategy reminiscent of the Cold War-era in order to alienate Iran from the rest of its Arab neighbors. With billions of dollars in American foreign aid spent on the cooptation of Iran’s neighbors, it can’t help but feel left out of the party. Moreover, according to Dr. Ray Takeyh of the Council of Foreign Affairs who spoke on the Iran Panel Monday afternoon, the Iranian government fears “cultural subversion” by the United States and economic encroachment by its multinational corporations. And with consequences far more serious that the fallout from a mere diplomatic snub, the Bush administration’s irresponsible habit of villainizing Iran has angered President Ahmadinejad into pursuing nuclear weapons in a desperate attempt to salvage his government’s declining credibility and influence in the international system.

The solutions to the Iran problem are as simple as they are difficult for American politicians to accept. In the coming months, America must disengage itself from Iran until after its parliamentary elections. President Ahmadinejad’s fundamentalist platform is based on a strategy of convincing Iranian voters that America is the “great Satan,” a claim that is not difficult to substantiate when restrictive American sanctions continue to alienate the large, educated Iranian middle class hungry for Western goods and culture. With pre-election American interventionism cited as one of the primary factors behind the election of Hamas to the Palestinian government in 2006, it is apparent that this strategy has failed in the past.

In the long term, America must reexamine its policy of economic containment. With European nations not only succeeding in bringing Iran to the negotiating table but also profiting from these ties, it is difficult to understand the American reluctance to set aside decades of ineffective principles and perhaps bring about an end to the present climate of nuclear uncertainty pervading Iran’s corner of the Middle East.