Iran Policy: Morally and Effectively Bankrupt

During the campaign debates between the major party presidential candidates, the two candidates essentially agreed on almost every subject. Romney claimed that Obama’s policies had failed and then announced that he would follow the same failed policies. On Iran the only disagreement was who would be the tougher president. Under Obama, the U.S. has engaged in economic warfare by imposing a unilateral sanctions regime and has strong armed other countries into abiding by the sanctions. The resulting economic dislocation, aggravated by mismanagement by the Iranian government, has had a significant impact on the economy. Oil exports have plummeted, contributing to a precipitous decline in the value of the rial. This decline, along with financial restrictions on marine insurance and funds transfer , have contributed to rising inflation and have made it difficult to import even essential goods such as medical equipment and drugs.

Despite all of the political noise, there has been almost no discussion about whether or not the sanctions policy is being effective in achieving its objectives and no discussion about the morality of economic warfare on the Iranian people.

Following the First Gulf War, the U.S. and its allies imposed draconian sanctions on Iraq designed to “punish the Iraqi people”. These sanctions destroyed the Iraqi healthcare and educational systems and resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary Iraqi deaths. (See here) Madeleine Albright (then US UN ambassador) declared on 60 Minutes that “the price is worth it”. In 1998 Denis Halliday, the UN administrator of the oil-for-food program, resigned to protest the sanctions saying, “We are in the process of destroying an entire country” and calling them “nothing less than genocide’. His replacement, Hans von Sponeck, resigned in 2000 denouncing the sanctions as “criminal policy”. (See here) As we head down the same path in Iran, the same descriptions apply.

The stated objectives behind the sanctions on Iran have been variously stated to be: to force Iran to abandon or change its nuclear program or to provoke civil unrest resulting in the overthrow of the Iranian government. The decade long enhanced sanctions regime has accomplished neither of these objectives. In the past decade, Iran has gone from a small number of centrifuges creating a small amount of low enriched uranium to thousands of centrifuges creating a large amount of 20% enriched uranium. The regime has withstood the large demonstrations surrounding the 2009 elections.

While accurate polling in Iran by western pollsters is difficult, it is not impossible. Recent polls show that there is little appetite for regime change. 85% of Iranians say it is important for Iran to have a civilian nuclear program. 65% blamed the worsening economy on western sanctions and only 11% on government mismanagement. 76% have an unfavorable view of the US. These and other results (See here) show that the theory that, if pressured enough, Iranians will rise against their government is wrong. Secondly, the more Iranians suffer, the more they blame those imposing the sanctions and not their own government.

It is time for our political leaders, whoever they may be, to rethink the Iran policy on which they so much agree.

Technorati Tags: Iran,Iran Sanctions

Peace Not Apartheid

In 2006 Former President Jimmy Carter published a book on the situation in Israel/Palestine entitled “Peace Not Apartheid”. In the book Carter argued that all parties to the situation in Israel/Palestine must take immediate steps to implement the Oslo Process designed to create two states living alongside each other in peace. Failing this, he argued, the result would be a land completely controlled by Israel with limited or no rights for its Palestinian residents. Carter’s use of the dreaded “A” word in the title caused considerable controversy at the time. As time has passed, with no progress towards a viable “two state solution”, Carter is beginning to look prescient.

Many observers, this one included, for a number of years have said that the day of the “two state solution” had come and gone. (See here) With over 500,000 Jews living on the Palestinian side of the green line and 1.5 mm Palestinians living on the Israeli side of the green line, it is impossible to unscramble the egg. The location of settlements and Jewish only roads on the West Bank make a viable Palestinian state impossible. As the situation has worsened over the years, the concept of a single state is becoming a more mainstream position. Veteran Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea recently wrote, “Everybody knows how this will end. There will be a bi-national [state]”. The only remaining question is, what kind of a state it will be. Will it be a bi-national state with equal rights for all of its citizens? Will it be a state ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian citizens? Or will it be an apartheid state where only Jewish citizens have complete rights of citizenship?

Some on the far right fringe in Israel advocate for an ethnically cleansed state. They say “Jordan is the Palestinian state”. It is unlikely that even Israel’s most ardent backers in the U.S. could support this outcome.

What appears to be more acceptable, at least in Israel, is an apartheid state. A recent poll commissioned by the Israeli paper Haaretz (See here) reported that 58% of Israeli Jews believe that Israel already practices apartheid against Palestinians. Two thirds believe that the 2.5 mm Palestinians living on the West Bank should be denied the right to vote. 33% say Palestinians living within Israel proper should be denied the right to vote. 75% are in favor of segregated roads. 60% say Jews should be given preference in government jobs and 50% say Jewish citizens should be treated better than Arabs.

Since Israel is a democracy, the views of its citizens are generally translated into government policies. It is likely that, in next year’s elections, the current right wing government will be even more solidified and Israel will move even further on the path to a bi-national apartheid state. The question for the Americans will be can they sustain their unbending support for Israeli policies in the face of this outcome.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Palestine,Apartheid

Afghanistan after America

With all the loud and largely fact free debate that is going on during the current presidential campaign, very little has been said about America’s longest war in Afghanistan. Neither candidate wants to talk about it since a reluctant Obama was never really sold on the surge strategy and any position taken by Romney would tie his hands should he be elected. However, whoever wins the election will quickly be faced with some very difficult decisions. With the 2014 deadline for withdrawal of American combat forces and a massive logistical task required to implement an orderly withdrawal, decisions will need to be made quickly. Since the press is preoccupied with campaign non-events, it might be useful to look at where we are and what the future might bring.

At a recent conference on the subject which I attended, Ryan Crocker, recently retired ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and four other Middle East countries, expressed his view that the surge had been relatively successful. Since Ambassador Crocker is no Pollyanna, (He was sarcastically dubbed “sunshine” by President Bush for ongoing pessimistic reports on the on the situation in Iraq) his assessment should be taken seriously.

While poorly conceived, planned and implemented the surge has accomplished some of its objectives. The surge forces have gained control of major population centers and the roads connecting them. While it might been more useful to train fewer forces better, 350,000 Afghan security forces have been partially trained and they may be capable of sustaining some control of the population centers once U.S. forces have departed. Some economic development projects have been completed. However, the vast majority of Afghan GDP is still directly tied to western aid and the presence of thousands of foreign troops and civilian workers. All this has been achieved in the face of rampant corruption, incompetence and bureaucratic infighting between the Dept. of State and the Pentagon, within the armed services and between allies. No small accomplishment. It is possible that we might just muddle through.

Nonetheless, everything must go right over the next few years for this to work out OK and not be a complete disaster. Some of the factors we have some control over and some we do not. It should be noted that Murphy probably developed his law after observing Afghanistan. Some of the factors to watch for are:

• · Are the Afghan security forces as good as Crocker thinks they are?
• · The Afghan political situation is fragile. Will Hamid Karzai step down at the end of his term? Who will succeed him?
• · What will Iran do? In the current circumstance, Iran is incentivized to maintain managed chaos.
• · What will Pakistan do? Pakistan will not allow an Indian client state on its western border. The good news on this front is that the Pakistani public no longer sees India as the major threat. America has assumed this position.
• · Will economically stressed western countries be able to deliver on their promised aid?
• · Will al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban be able to reconstitute themselves and regain their position as a global threat?

Ambassador Crocker articulated his primary rules for international relations. “Be very concerned about the unintended consequences of any decision that you make. Be very careful before you get in. Be very careful how you get out.”

So far we have violated the first two in Afghanistan. I hope that we don’t go 3 for 3. The last time we were involved in Afghanistan, we declared victory and walked away. We ended up with al Qaeda.