Economic sanctions in place for decades have not stopped Iran from pursuing nuclear ambitions or, if Bush administration allegations are true, from funding terror across the Middle East.
So why would the sanctions announced Thursday -- a big dose of more of the same -- cause Iran to change its policies?
The latest sanctions might even make Iran dig in more, analysts said.
``It is unlikely to directly affect Iranian behavior on the nuclear side,'' said Robert Hunter, a Middle East expert and senior adviser at the RAND Corporation. ``It is a symbolic message to Iran and everyone else that the US is deadly serious.''
The US has had only mixed results using sanctions as a foreign policy tool in the past against countries like Iran, Cuba and North Korea.
Under decades-old US financial sanctions, virtually all trade and investment activities with the government of Iran, including government-owned banks, are prohibited. Other sanctions have hit Iranian entities that the US believes are linked to terror activities and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
`banker of terror'
Despite all that, the US says Iran funnels hundreds of millions of dollars a year to Hezbollah, Hamas and other groups the US considers terror organizations. The US has called the country a ``central banker of terror.''
Tehran also has not backed down from its nuclear ambitions, which the US insists are to make nuclear weapons.
Iran's defiance of UN Security Council demands that it stop uranium enrichment has led to two sets of economic sanctions. A third, tougher set of UN sanctions has been stalled by opposition from China and Russia.
The US and some of its allies accuse Iran of secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons and have demanded it halt uranium enrichment, a step both to the production of energy and the production of atomic weapons. Iran denies the claim, saying its program is for peaceful purposes only, including generating electricity.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in announcing the new sanctions with US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, said Washington remains open to a ``diplomatic solution.''
The latest sanctions against Iran, the harshest since the takeover of the US Embassy in 1979, include among other things targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, part of the country's military, as well as the Iran's special operations unit, Quds Force, which is part of the Guard Corps.
Three of Iran's largest banks -- Bank Melli, Bank Mellat and Bank Saderat -- also were targeted. The US had already moved in 2006 to sever Bank Saderat from the US financial system.
The order also designates companies believed to be owned or controlled by the Revolutionary Guard Corps, as well as military officials and people involved in Iran's ballistic missile programs.
Under the action, any financial assets found in the US belonging to those named Thursday must be frozen. Americans also are prohibited from doing business with them. Essentially those targeted are frozen out of the US, the world's largest economy and home to the globe's most influential banking system.
Importantly, the new sanctions can make others outside the US think twice about having relationships with those blacklisted.
That requires skillful financial diplomacy.
The US, which has been pressing allies in Europe, Japan and elsewhere, has had only limited success with persuading financial institutions outside the US to voluntarily sever or scale back business with Iran.
It is a challenge given Iran's standing in the global economy and its position as a major oil supplier. That makes Iran an attractive investment for companies.
For the new sanctions to be effective, the US needs to persuade other countries to follow suit.
``So far, however, the administration has presented only the broad outline of a justification for its actions, not the comprehensive details required to be convincing,'' Anthony Cordesman of the Center for International and Strategic Studies said. ``There has been no mention of how they relate to US efforts to work with Britain, France and Germany or in the context of the UN.''
``There may well be a good, practical case for the new sanctions, but so far, the administration is acting as if there was no world beyond the Beltway,'' he said, referring to the highway that encircles Washington.
previous problems
The US has had only mixed results using sanctions as a foreign policy tool in the past against other countries, including Cuba and North Korea.
Despite sanctions in place for more than 40 years against Cuba, Fidel Castro's communist regime is intact. The broad sanctions against Cuba and those against Iraq before the US ouster of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein probably hurt the people of the countries more than they modified governments' behavior, analysts said.
Financial sanctions aimed at stopping the flow of money to Hamas probably generated sympathy for the group among Arabs and in some ways has made them more popular.
In North Korea, sanctions left the country more financially isolated and prompted international banks to sever ties there.
But there was a price: A financial dispute over millions of dollars in frozen North Korean assets held by an Asian bank sidelined multinational nuclear disarmament talks with North Korea.
After much negotiating, the dispute was resolved with the once frozen money returned to North Korea. In turn, North Korea pledged to move ahead on disabling its main nuclear facilities.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing