Bolsonaro and Iran

Published in Folha de São Paulo
(Brazil) on 27 July 2019
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Domitila Olivé. Edited by Margaret McIntyre.
The president’s voluntary alignment with the U.S. exposes Brazil more than necessary

The episode in which two Iranian ships were detained due to lack of fuel near the port of Paranaguá, in the state of Paraná, Brazil, called attention to the uncertain direction of Jair Bolsonaro’s foreign policy.

The ships brought urea and were to return filled with corn. This is included in the United States’ sanctions list on the Middle Eastern country – while the transportation of food is not punishable.

Those who cooperate with the operation of the ships are, thus, subject to secondary sanctions. Petrobras, an almost monopolist supplier of naval fuel, denied filling the cargo ships’ tanks.

The oil giant had good reasons. Since, in 2018, the U.S. left the multilateral pact destined to avoid letting the Iranian nuclear program develop an atomic bomb, Washington has increased pressure on its adversary.

That includes punishing anyone who collaborates with Tehran. An open capital state company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Petrobras has a responsibility towards their shareholders and must avoid the risk of sanctions.

The government, despite being its controller, does not have absolute powers over the company. Therefore, Bolsonaro just had to let the dispute play itself out with a legal outcome – which ended up happening when the Federal Supreme Court determined the refueling of the vessels.

But the president does not favor restraints and, after evoking the risk of sanctions, he highlighted alignment with Donald Trump’s administration.

If Brazil deserved criticism when it was ruled by the Worker Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores) due to its friendly policy towards Iran, helping to play others’ war drums does not align with the country’s tradition, either.

In addition, there are potential tangible losses. This year, the Persian nation was responsible for the fourth largest surplus on the Brazilian trade balance and it is the greatest external destination for our corn.

During visits from Americans and Israelis in 2019 to defend their hardening stance toward Iran, the Brazilian government reiterated that only a change in understanding by the International Atomic Energy Agency about Iranian intentions would make Brazil change its attitude.

That could even happen, given that the ayatollahs have been taking more radical positions. However, so far, diplomats’ prudence, supported by the military summit, prevailed.

The volunteerism that Bolsonaro expresses, inspired by the so-called ideological environment that Chancellor Ernesto Araújo pontificates, threatens to break this delicate balance.


Alinhamento voluntarista do presidente aos EUA expõe o Brasil além do necessário

O episódio em que dois navios iranianos ficaram retidos por falta de abastecimento perto do porto de Paranaguá (PR) pôs em evidência os incertos rumos da política externa de Jair Bolsonaro (PSL).

As embarcações trouxeram ureia para voltar carregadas com milho. Elas estão incluídas na lista de sanções dos Estados Unidos ao país asiático —enquanto o transporte de alimentos é isento de punições.

Quem coopera com o funcionamento dos navios fica, pois, sujeito a penalidades secundárias. A Petrobras, fornecedora quase monopolista de combustível naval, se negou a encher o tanque dos cargueiros.

A petroleira teve bons motivos. Desde que, em 2018, os EUA deixaram o pacto multilateral destinado a evitar que o programa nuclear do Irã desenvolvesse a bomba atômica, Washington tem aumentado a pressão sobre o adversário.

Isso inclui punir quem colabora com Teerã. Estatal com capital aberto, listada na Bolsa de Nova York, a Petrobras tem responsabilidade para com seus acionistas e deve evitar o risco de sanções.

O governo, apesar de ser seu controlador, não tem poderes absolutos sobre a estatal. Logo, bastaria a Bolsonaro deixar a disputa se desenrolar, com um desfecho judicial —que acabou acontecendo, com o Supremo Tribunal Federal determinando o abastecimento.

Mas o presidente não prima pela contenção e, após evocar o perigo de sanções, ressaltou o alinhamento ao governo de Donald Trump.
Se na era petista o Brasil mereceu críticas por sua política amistosa em relação ao Irã, ajudar a tocar tambores de guerra alheios tampouco condiz com sua tradição.

Ademais, há perdas palpáveis em potencial. Neste ano, a nação persa foi responsável pelo quarto maior superávit na balança comercial brasileira, e é o maior destino externo de nosso milho.

Em visitas de americanos e israelenses neste 2019 para defender o endurecimento com o Irã, o Itamaraty reiterou que apenas uma mudança de entendimento da Agência Internacional de Energia Atômica sobre as intenções iranianas faria o Brasil mudar de atitude.

Isso pode até acontecer, dado que os aiatolás têm radicalizado suas posições. Até aqui, porém, a prudência de diplomatas, amparada pela cúpula militar, prevaleceu.

O voluntarismo expresso por Bolsonaro, inspirado por um entorno dito ideológico no qual pontifica o chanceler Ernesto Araújo, ameaça romper esse delicado equilíbrio.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Israel: Partnership or Dependence? The Danger behind the American Embrace on Iran

Austria: Trump Punishes Merz but Also Weakens His Own Country

Ireland: Don’t Ask Americans about News or Politics. They’re Done

Austria: Trump Can’t Destroy NATO

Topics

Saudi Arabia: Iran War: Cup Moving Toward the Lip?

South Africa: UN Security Council’s Veto Powers Bite back the US

Austria: Trump Punishes Merz but Also Weakens His Own Country

Austria: Trump Can’t Destroy NATO

South Korea: Trump’s Move To Cut Troops in Germany Must Not Affect Korean Peninsula

Germany: Europe Last

Japan: Attack on Iran: Ending the Battle Is the Main Priority

Related Articles

Saudi Arabia: Iran War: Cup Moving Toward the Lip?

South Africa: UN Security Council’s Veto Powers Bite back the US

Israel: Partnership or Dependence? The Danger behind the American Embrace on Iran

Spain: Dangerous Time-Out in Iran

South Africa: Trump’s Cantankerous Leadership a Bad Omen for World Peace