Avoiding Pariah States
Avoiding Pariah States
Although many efforts have been made by the international community to suspend Iran’s
nuclear activities, their achievements continue. A more successful policy would remove all
sanctions, and fully engage Iran in international and regional trade, thus requiring Iran to
be more transparent and to act according to international legal trade rules.
More than fifteen years of sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran by the United
States, the United Nations and the European Union, have shown little success in achieving the
main goal; that is curbing the Iranian nuclear activities on its territory. Six main areas – weapons
development, trade and investment, nuclear materials, financial dealings, assets and refined
gasoline – were targeted by the US sanctions with the hope the Iranian economy will suffer
seriously resulting in suspension of all nuclear activities. However, the reality is that Iran has not
only refused to stop enriching uranium, but it has also declared itself to be a nuclear state in
2010. Sanctions on Iranian petroleum and gas actually do not solve the problem, since such
countries as Brazil, Russia, India and China are outside the US-dominated club of nations and fill
the gap created by the sanctions. These countries oppose the sanctions and instead boost their
economic ties with Iran. Besides, sanctions on gas and petroleum leads to avoiding international
banking system and gives way to private trade and smugglers which enhances corruption and
black market development. All kind of sanctions only work against impoverished people,
especially children, by increasing poverty and mortality. This was the same in the case of Iraq,
when deaths during the sanctions ranged from 100,000 to over 1.5 million, most of them were
children. Moreover, sanctions make the population consolidate authority for self-defense in a
situation even when the Iranian people do not support their leaders' nuclear program.
It would be more beneficial if all sanctions are removed, and Iran is engaged in a full
international and regional trade thus being required to be more transparent and act according to
international legal trade rules. The probability of engaging in regional projects will minimize
Iran's willingness to engage in confrontations. Any kind of isolation gives Iran more of an
opportunity to rely on its own capacities in the nuclear issue. Initially Iran enriched uranium to
3.5 percent, then to 20 percent, and it may have all the capacity to enrich it to further percentages
if it intends to build a bomb. Iran belongs to the range of countries, which have all the necessary
technology for enriching uranium and consequently might gain all the capacity to produce
enriched uranium designed for a weapon.
The possibility of launching a military operation against Iran by the United States is the most
discussed option for providing a solution to the Iranian nuclear program.
Not excluding a possible resolution through a military strike puts the Iranian regime under
pressure. Such pressure has or might result in consequences such as massive arming, in order to
counter an attack by the US. Permanent testing of missiles of different ranges speaks to Iran's
readiness to counter an attack by striking not only the US positions in Persian Gulf but also
Israel.
Apart from this, Iran might try to get a nuclear weapon before the US was to attack.
It is not without reason, that Iran either hides its nuclear achievements or declares them post
factum. Such steps may allow opportunities for Iran to gather all the necessary materials for
making a bomb and go nuclear whenever it feels a real threat from the US. One of the possible
consequences could be Iran's withdrawal from Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran
might follow North Korea's step of leaving the NPT. After such action, Iran might get more
aggressive by putting more severe conditions before the US and Europe than before, already
being out of the principles of international law and obligations. On the other hand, for the time
being Iran has not put its withdrawal from the treaty on the agenda to keep its nuclear activities
legal and not to complicate its ties with countries which are a part of NPT and active trade
partners, such as Russia.
Consequences of the military strike on Iran could be devastating from both a regional and global
perspective. Limited-scale operations against Iran will give a desirable result, however a largerscale operation could be devastating. Among the most evident consequences are the following:
Missile attacks on Israel by Iran (Shahab-3 missile is capable of reaching Israel and U.S.
forces in the Middle East),
An increase in oil prices, Iran's support to terrorist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan,
A huge number of civilian casualties, since the US will not be limited by striking just
nuclear sites, but also research centers and laboratories which are located at universities and
other public institutions,
Hezbollah's activation in Syria and Lebanon and the possibility of a new war against
Israel,
A huge current of refugees would flow to Armenia and Azerbaijan.
If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it is very unlikely it will use it. Firstly, If Iran decides to use a
nuclear bomb it also acknowledges that a massive response will follow and in that case the
consequences will be too devastating for Iran on all levels. Besides, military actions by the US
will be quite legitimate in that case. Iran will not proliferate of nuclear weapons. Though today's
regime is radically Islamist, it barely wishes to see other nuclear states on its borders, even if
they are perceived as allies, for example Turkey. Though Turkish-Iranian relations are cordial,
they have always been rivals for decades over regional dominance.
Another implication for the Iranian nuclear program is the possibility of a regime change
according to the Egyptian scenario. Many suppose that the regime change will lead to change in
orientation of the Iranian nuclear program. It is true that Iran might become more flexible and
express more readiness in a dialogue with international structures. However, raison d’état will
remain the main driving power and the regime change will not cause а full suspension of Iranian
nuclear activities. It is essential not to forget that the institution of the president in Iran does not
play a key role in policy formation.
Although many efforts have been made by the international community to suspend Iran’s
nuclear activities, their achievements continue. A more successful policy would remove all
sanctions, and fully engage Iran in international and regional trade, thus requiring Iran to
be more transparent and to act according to international legal trade rules.
More than fifteen years of sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran by the United
States, the United Nations and the European Union, have shown little success in achieving the
main goal; that is curbing the Iranian nuclear activities on its territory. Six main areas – weapons
development, trade and investment, nuclear materials, financial dealings, assets and refined
gasoline – were targeted by the US sanctions with the hope the Iranian economy will suffer
seriously resulting in suspension of all nuclear activities. However, the reality is that Iran has not
only refused to stop enriching uranium, but it has also declared itself to be a nuclear state in
2010. Sanctions on Iranian petroleum and gas actually do not solve the problem, since such
countries as Brazil, Russia, India and China are outside the US-dominated club of nations and fill
the gap created by the sanctions. These countries oppose the sanctions and instead boost their
economic ties with Iran. Besides, sanctions on gas and petroleum leads to avoiding international
banking system and gives way to private trade and smugglers which enhances corruption and
black market development. All kind of sanctions only work against impoverished people,
especially children, by increasing poverty and mortality. This was the same in the case of Iraq,
when deaths during the sanctions ranged from 100,000 to over 1.5 million, most of them were
children. Moreover, sanctions make the population consolidate authority for self-defense in a
situation even when the Iranian people do not support their leaders' nuclear program.
It would be more beneficial if all sanctions are removed, and Iran is engaged in a full
international and regional trade thus being required to be more transparent and act according to
international legal trade rules. The probability of engaging in regional projects will minimize
Iran's willingness to engage in confrontations. Any kind of isolation gives Iran more of an
opportunity to rely on its own capacities in the nuclear issue. Initially Iran enriched uranium to
3.5 percent, then to 20 percent, and it may have all the capacity to enrich it to further percentages
if it intends to build a bomb. Iran belongs to the range of countries, which have all the necessary
technology for enriching uranium and consequently might gain all the capacity to produce
enriched uranium designed for a weapon.
The possibility of launching a military operation against Iran by the United States is the most
discussed option for providing a solution to the Iranian nuclear program.
Not excluding a possible resolution through a military strike puts the Iranian regime under
pressure. Such pressure has or might result in consequences such as massive arming, in order to
counter an attack by the US. Permanent testing of missiles of different ranges speaks to Iran's
readiness to counter an attack by striking not only the US positions in Persian Gulf but also
Israel.
Apart from this, Iran might try to get a nuclear weapon before the US was to attack.
It is not without reason, that Iran either hides its nuclear achievements or declares them post
factum. Such steps may allow opportunities for Iran to gather all the necessary materials for
making a bomb and go nuclear whenever it feels a real threat from the US. One of the possible
consequences could be Iran's withdrawal from Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran
might follow North Korea's step of leaving the NPT. After such action, Iran might get more
aggressive by putting more severe conditions before the US and Europe than before, already
being out of the principles of international law and obligations. On the other hand, for the time
being Iran has not put its withdrawal from the treaty on the agenda to keep its nuclear activities
legal and not to complicate its ties with countries which are a part of NPT and active trade
partners, such as Russia.
Consequences of the military strike on Iran could be devastating from both a regional and global
perspective. Limited-scale operations against Iran will give a desirable result, however a largerscale operation could be devastating. Among the most evident consequences are the following:
Missile attacks on Israel by Iran (Shahab-3 missile is capable of reaching Israel and U.S.
forces in the Middle East),
An increase in oil prices, Iran's support to terrorist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan,
A huge number of civilian casualties, since the US will not be limited by striking just
nuclear sites, but also research centers and laboratories which are located at universities and
other public institutions,
Hezbollah's activation in Syria and Lebanon and the possibility of a new war against
Israel,
A huge current of refugees would flow to Armenia and Azerbaijan.
If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it is very unlikely it will use it. Firstly, If Iran decides to use a
nuclear bomb it also acknowledges that a massive response will follow and in that case the
consequences will be too devastating for Iran on all levels. Besides, military actions by the US
will be quite legitimate in that case. Iran will not proliferate of nuclear weapons. Though today's
regime is radically Islamist, it barely wishes to see other nuclear states on its borders, even if
they are perceived as allies, for example Turkey. Though Turkish-Iranian relations are cordial,
they have always been rivals for decades over regional dominance.
Another implication for the Iranian nuclear program is the possibility of a regime change
according to the Egyptian scenario. Many suppose that the regime change will lead to change in
orientation of the Iranian nuclear program. It is true that Iran might become more flexible and
express more readiness in a dialogue with international structures. However, raison d’état will
remain the main driving power and the regime change will not cause а full suspension of Iranian
nuclear activities. It is essential not to forget that the institution of the president in Iran does not
play a key role in policy formation.