Head to Head: Iran Sanctions
Sanctions against nuclear weapons in Iran have fallen on deaf ears.
Matt Martorana and Amanda Mihoub Wright
McMaster Debating Society
Q: Are sanctions against Iran effective?
M: Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that Iran was using its nuclear development program to design a nuclear weapon. The international community has known for years about Iran’s nuclear development and has on many occasions implemented sanctions against Iran. Yet in light of the report last week, many believe that the UN should place tougher sanctions on Iran than the ones that are currently in place. I strongly disagree with such a sentiment and argue that even the sanctions that we currently have in place should be removed. Sanctions are ineffective in preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran. Iran already has the materials and intellectual capacity required to develop nuclear weapons. Sanctions cannot do much to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons because Iran already has everything it needs.
A: Matt has a point. Iran already has the means necessary to develop nuclear weapons. However, there are many benefits to imposing further sanctions on Iran. First of all, they are primarily a method of forcing Iran to come to the table for negotiations. Sanctions, in the long run, can make the situation more diplomatic by opening up a dialogue between Iran and Western nations, which in turn could prevent the situation from escalating into another war in the Middle East. The Western nations that are pushing for the UN to impose sanctions also demonstrate their commitment to preserving their relationships with Israel, Saudi Arabia and the moderate Islamic states that oppose Iran’s proliferation of nuclear weapons.
M: Any sanction that we impose on Iran is incomplete because China, Russia, and India are unwilling to comply. If we want to force Iran to come to the table, then we need to ensure that all countries are going to abide by the sanctions. By sanctioning Iran, Iran is forced to trade with China and Russia, allowing China and Russian to exert a considerable influence within the region. I agree with Amanda that we should preserve our relationship with Israel while demonstrating that the development of nuclear weapons in Iran is unacceptable. But sanctions are not the best way to do that; they only force Iran to trade with China, Russia, and India. Instead of isolating Iran, we should welcome Iran into the international community. By creating economic ties with Iran we can exert our own influence within the region and control the message that is disseminated to Iranians, curbing damaging anti-U.S. extremist rhetoric.
A: Even though the prospect of collective international action will be thwarted by China and Russia, it is still imperative that tougher sanctions are imposed on Iran. The overall goal of sanctions is to essentially impact the Iranian economy to the point where the Iranian government is open to negotiations. Removing all the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran does not create any incentives for Iran to improve its transparency in terms of its nuclear program or to improve its relations with Western nations. Furthermore, since President Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime are demonstratively anti-West, it is unlikely that they would allow the West to exert any influence within Iran. As the attempted assassination on the Saudi Arabian ambassador on U.S. soil demonstrates, the Iranian regime is not deterred by international laws. The situation in the Middle East needs to remain diplomatic and the next step after sanctions – a military attack on Iran – should not occur until all other diplomatic methods are exhausted. Sanctions may prevent a pre-emptive military strike. If a pre-emptive military strike occurs, on the part of the U.S. or the Western nations opposing Iran’s nuclear proliferation, the entire region would be destabilized. Iranians may unite against Western powers and side with their unpopular governmental regime. Regional terrorists could utilize the situation as a new propaganda tool and a new war in the Middle East could occur. Also, it is not necessarily a given fact that Iran would lose the war. The alternatives to sanctions are obviously very severe. It is imperative that sanctions are imposed in order to slow the nuclear program and to foster opposition against the Iranian regime. Even though it is likely that China, Russia and India will continue to trade with Iran, sanctions will still have an impact on the Iranian economy, which should still negatively impact the development of their proliferation process.
M: Amanda, stalling Iran for maybe a few more months really does not change much in the grand scheme of things. Iran is going to develop a nuclear weapon and there isn't much we can do now to prevent this – even a military strike may not be enough to prevent Iran from developing their nuclear weapon. The best thing we can do is to ensure that the regime in Iran does not use the weapon. Sanctions give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a scapegoat to stay in power and cover up his bad economic policy. Instead of blaming high levels of unemployment and poverty on his failure for economic development, it gives Ahmadinejad the excuse that the United States and other Western Countries are doing this to them. Sanctions allow Ahmadinejad to solidify his over-stayed incumbency. Moderate Islamist parties cannot step up to challenge Ahmadinejad when Ahmadinejad claims “extreme measures are needed fight the United States.” As long as we continue to sanction Iran, we will prevent any influence that we could establish within the region, and we will give Ahmadinejad more fuel for his self-serving propaganda.
A: The nuclear weapons situation in Iran is a sensitive one that is fraught with issues and difficulties. There are both potential benefits and consequences to imposing and removing economic sanctions on Iran. However, removing the current sanctions on Iran will not improve the situation. Further sanctions need to be proposed on Iran. There are two options if imposing further sanctions does not lead to a more diplomatic solution. The first one, a preemptive military attack on the part of Western powers, is an option that will have dire consequences on the West and Middle East for generations to come. The second option, a nuclear-armed Iran, is essentially what would occur if economic sanctions were to be removed. If this were to become reality, a regional arms race would occur and the likelihood of nuclear weapons actually being used would be far greater than it is now. The political situation in the Middle East is a fragile one and its destabilization must be avoided at all costs.
Matt Martorana and Amanda Mihoub Wright tackle this week's touchy topic.
