Sanctions won't work

Although the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council gave their unanimous approval to Resolution 1696 which calls for sanctions against Iran to pressure it to give up its uranium enrichment programme, differences of approach remain on how best to proceed further.
French President Jacques Chirac, on a visit to China, said on Friday, "I hope that we can find a solution through dialogue. ...If it goes on and appears that the dialogue will not end [the stalemate], then it is probably necessary to find calibrated, adaptable, temporary and reversible sanctions that will be imposed to show Iran that the entire international community does not understand their position and is hostile to it."
China and Russia that have strong economic interests in Iran, of course, are even more averse to any rush towards stringent sanctions. The US, meanwhile, has already begun preparations for the implementation of possible sanctions. A US State Department official disclosed last Friday that the following Monday six nations would participate in a naval exercise in the Gulf near Iran to simulate inspection of a "target vessel carrying material useful to a nuclear weapons programme" bound for "a country of proliferation concern in the region."
Such intimidation tactics are counterproductive. They tend to strengthen the resolve of the government in Tehran and rally the people round it. A prominent cleric, Ahmad Khatami, averred in a sermon in Tehran that for the past 27 years his country had remained under sanctions and yet "it was with these sanctions that the Iranian youth reached nuclear energy and self-sufficiency." Indeed, sanctions are not an effective way of forcing nations to abandon their chosen path.
Cuba and North Korea, the countries with far less economic resources than Iran, have amply proved that to be true. Libya did buckle under after a prolonged period of resistance, but the reason why it gave up its nuclear programme and sought rehabilitation in the international community had more to do with what the US did to Iraq than international restrictions. Unsurprisingly, reports from Tehran indicate that despite the UN threat of sanctions, scientists have begun a new phase of uranium enrichment.
The country, however, says it wants to resolve the current stalemate through negotiations. But the US has continued to maintain that it would talk to Tehran only if it suspends its enrichment programme. In other words, it must do the needful first and expect a dialogue afterwards. Which does not make much sense, especially in view of the fact that Iran has serious security concerns regarding America and Israel's intentions. The international community, including the US, must address these concerns before insisting that Iran abandon its enrichment programme.
US invasion and occupation of Iraq under the false pretext of WMDs, as well as North Korea's recent nuclear explosion have generated new dangers for international security. More and more nations have come to regard nukes as the must-have deterrent. Even Japan has started to make noises about a rethink in its old policy in order to have a nuclear weapons programme of its own. The best way to end this dangerous trend towards nuclear proliferation is for the original members of the nuclear club - namely US, Britain, France and Russia - to honour their commitments under Article 6 of the NPT that require them to make "good faith" efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons.
Only when the big countries make such efforts will the temptation go away for the ones like Iran to shed their nuclear ambitions. As a first step in that direction the US must give up its rejection of the 1993 UN resolution that calls for a fissile material cut-off treaty and is supported by almost all UN members.
With regard to the more immediate issue of Iran's nuclear programme, the US needs to desist from putting conditions on a negotiated solution, and President Bush must stop saying all options, including the military one, remain on the table. Military option is not going to work, talks might if they are to provide Iran with the necessary security guarantees.