Strategy on Iran threatens world peace

The decision by the United States to up-yours the United Nations by implementing unilateral and, in terms of international law, suspect sanctions against Iran over dubious claims about its nuclear programme, is pushing that country deeper and deeper into a no-win corner. In the process, it is not only increasing the risk of conflict in the Middle East, but it has made most of the rest of the world a more dangerous and potentially volatile place in which to live.

Not happy with the sanctions imposed against Iran by the United Nations on 9 June over its disputed nuclear programme, the US Congress has effectively declared economic war that goes way beyond the scope of the issue at hand: Iran’s development of nuclear weapons capacity.

The American sanctions were imposed despite a warning at the time by the director of the US Central Intelligence Agency Leon Panetta that so-called targeted economic sanctions would probably not deter Iran from seeking a nuclear capability.

The effect of the mechanisms used by the US congress to enforce the sanctions is also that it unilaterally extends the scope of US legislation to well beyond the jurisdiction of its domestic borders.

In the process, it has put some strain on existing international relationships and blunted the effectiveness of the UN as a reliable instrument for the resolution of international disputes. It also runs a high risk of being counterproductive to attempts to deal with Iran’s nuclear aspirations in a peaceful manner.

The European Union has since followed suit and the measures have already started effectively to close down the Iranian economy. Using the leverage of the fact that the American war machine, as represented by the Pentagon, is the world’s single-largest oil consumer, the world' largest oil companies have been bullied into cutting off the supply of refined fuel to Iranian ships and commercial planes.

Although Iran is the world’s fifth largest producer of crude oil, it lacks refining capacity due to previously imposed US sanctions, and it is dependent on imports for 40% of its refined fuel.

However, the measures, in addition to the UN directive for member states to search Iranian ships suspected of transporting banned nuclear related freight, go way beyond merely the energy sector. The measures also target banks and financial institutions which do business with black-listed Iranian entities.

Within a week of the new American sanctions coming into effect, Lloyd’s of London announced it will not insure or reinsure petroleum shipments going into Iran.

Iran has already found it more difficult to secure trade finance as international companies fear being in breach of US sanctions. The Washington Post reported last week that “dozens of Iranian vessels that transport crude oil, industrial equipment and other goods and supplies in and out of the Islamic Republic have been denied insurance coverage for weeks".

How widely the sanctions impact is illustrated by the fact that even the US-based Educational Testing Service, delivering English proficiency testing required for studies at universities worldwide, has stopped online registration in Iran because it can no longer accept payments from there. This could hurt the chances of young Iranians wanting to study abroad.

In the wake of the UN sanctions, the Iranian parliament earlier already passed a bill calling for cargo inspections on any ships from countries that inspect Iranian vessels. These Iranian inspections will take place in the narrow Strait of Hormuz, which constitutes the world’s largest crude oil hub.

While some commentators are describing the latest, ex-UN, sanctions as an act of war, the threat of retaliation from Iran - while it serves to not only consolidate the Iranian population behind the government but also to radicalise ordinary Iranians - is ominous.

However, direct military intervention in Iran, be it direct or via Israel, is an even less attractive option and could prove to be even more counterproductive.

A report by the Oxford Research Group on Military Action Against Iran: Impact and Effects concludes that “an Iranian administration under attack would experience considerable national unity and would work rapidly to redevelop its weapons programmes, withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and prioritising nuclear weapons.”

While generally the omnipresent danger of a pre-emptive strike by Israel against Iran is presently judged to be low, the United Kingdom’s Guardian newspaper last week warned in an article that Iran may just spring a nasty surprise of its own.

Referring to US President Barack Obama’s expressed confidence that Israel would not attack Iran without first consulting him, the Guardian wrote: “…nothing Obama said can remove the possibility that dangerous surprises may be in store, for both Israel and the US, emanating from Iran. The depth and breadth of the confrontation with Tehran on numerous fronts – political, commercial, geographical and physical – is growing exponentially. The situation grows less predictable, and thus more volatile, by the day. It would not take much to spark a full-blown crisis, most probably unplanned.”

With some of the world’s largest companies having been sucked into the confrontation, and keeping in mind that some four million Iranians live abroad, the surprises may be sprung at and on non-conventional targets. A terrorist attack almost anywhere in the world on the appropriate symbolic target could easily be on the cards.

(For full report click here)