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.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
Heavy rains over the past week have overwhelmed southern and central Taiwan, with flooding, landslides, road closures, damage to property and the evacuations of thousands of people. Schools and offices were closed in some areas due to the deluge throughout the week. The heavy downpours brought by the southwest monsoon are a second blow to a region still recovering from last month’s Typhoon Danas. Strong winds and significant rain from the storm inflicted more than NT$2.6 billion (US$86.6 million) in agricultural losses, and damaged more than 23,000 roofs and a record high of nearly 2,500 utility poles, causing power outages. As
The greatest pressure Taiwan has faced in negotiations stems from its continuously growing trade surplus with the US. Taiwan’s trade surplus with the US reached an unprecedented high last year, surging by 54.6 percent from the previous year and placing it among the top six countries with which the US has a trade deficit. The figures became Washington’s primary reason for adopting its firm stance and demanding substantial concessions from Taipei, which put Taiwan at somewhat of a disadvantage at the negotiating table. Taiwan’s most crucial bargaining chip is undoubtedly its key position in the global semiconductor supply chain, which led
RSS