The United States has unilaterally imposed sanctions against Iran. The sanctions are aimed against four Iranian state-controlled banks, as well as Quds, a special unit of Iran's Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, an elite unit of Iran's Armed Forces. In imposing the sanctions, the U.S. accused not only Quds but also the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a whole of aiding the Shiite insurgents fighting against the U.S. military in Iraq, and assisting the Taliban and other terrorist groups. Furthermore, the Corps and the four banks were accused of being involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs.
The sanctions are unlikely to cause serious damage to Iranian organizations. But it seems that these sanctions have a different goal. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said bluntly that the moves are designed to "provide a powerful deterrent" for companies in the United States and abroad, urging them to sever business relationships with Iran. As is known, this applies to Chinese, Russian, Western European, and Canadian organizations, companies, and banks.
From every indication, Washington is concerned not only that such relationships weaken the anti-Iran course of the U.S. administration, but also by the prevailing situation, where American business is in danger of falling by the wayside. In this respect, the United States is especially worried by the prospect that its companies will have no place in Iraq when, sooner or later, somehow or other, the situation in that country, unique in its natural gas and oil reserves, will stabilize.
When the sanctions were declared, I was in Hamburg attending a meeting between German business people and representatives of 11 Russian territorial chambers of commerce and industry. The reaction of the German business community to the U.S. moves was clearly negative. At any rate, I did not hear a single word in defense of the sanctions on Iran.
Judging from reports in the media, political figures in leading European countries were equally skeptical in their comments. The Financial Times headlined an article in its October 27-28 issue: "Iran Sanctions Put West's Unity at Risk," while The International Herald Tribune in its October 26 issue quoted Anthony Cordesman, a defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, as asking if the United States can "target banks and companies providing services to largely civil groups without provoking a major international reaction?"
Yet the reaction has not been limited to the economic aspects of the sanctions. Many have been concerned by the White House's backsliding into one-sided moves - unilateralism from which Washington seemed to have started moving away. That was how the public saw a series of resignations by neo-cons closely associated with President Bush, linking them, with good reason, to the unilateral operation in Iraq. Now again, Washington is acting alone.
Such fears are growing in so far as the American sanctions are being seen in the context of escalation, which can lead to unilateral military actions by the U.S. against Iran. Noteworthy in this context is a statement by Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, one of the leading candidates for the presidency from the Democratic Party. Referring to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who took a positive view of the sanctions, he said he thought that the Iran resolution gave the Bush administration "a green light" to invade Iran. True, when announcing the sanctions, Rice stressed that the United States was still committed to the search for political solutions with Iran. However, as follows from Obama's statement, that "cushion" does not seem to be working.
There is yet another very important circumstance that makes the U.S. sanctions against Iran absolutely inappropriate. As is known, the world community is working to secure guarantees against Iran's military nuclear program. By now, there are some prospects for achieving this goal. Iran is successfully negotiating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Tehran has announced its readiness to provide a positive response to the questions brought up by the international nuclear watchdog, and to widely open its doors to monitoring of its nuclear activities.
The recent meetings with President Vladimir Putin have made a substantial impact on the Iranian leaders - not only President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but also Iran's spiritual leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei. Putin's visit to Tehran opened real opportunities for negotiations, not least between Iran and the United States.
Putin duly briefed George W. Bush on that. In Tehran, the Caspian states, including Iran, have signed a declaration against the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region. The U.S. decision to impose unilateral sanctions against Iran may cause it to toughen its position. Or maybe the United States believes that a demonstration of force is indispensable in prodding Iraq toward agreements? If that is indeed the case, Washington is seriously wrong.
The way I see it, forceful methods, methods based on the use of force weaken the positions, above all, of those members of the Iranian leadership who are inclined to search for a peace settlement.
"How will the United States show the world that any such actions have real justification?" This question was asked not by me, but by Anthony Cordesman, the defense analyst quoted by the The International Herald Tribune.
By Yevgeny Primakov, Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
