Fiasco of the Economic War

Along with the diplomatic and economic sanctions on Tehran, there has been a secret war on Iranian soil over the last four years — one that has been gradually sliding into nearly military activity.

The foreign publications, abundantly reporting about computer worms, about mysterious mishaps, about explosions in military installations and finally, about physical assault on scientists and experts, point to a clear picture: Among all the forces acting to thwart the Iranian agenda, somebody decided that diplomacy and economic duress alone are not going to be efficient, and began operating directly and with increasing intensity.

We’re not talking the United States here. After the elimination at the heart of Tehran of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, deputy director of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, the Americans cared to distance themselves from the move in every possible way. Washington is still positive that economic sanctions, should they be tough enough, will be able to stop the Iranians. That’s the background for the Israeli frustration expressed by various governmental officials this week. Jerusalem does not share the almost religious faith of the Americans in the sanctions.

Since the end of the Cold War, the economic sanctions have turned into a key tool in the management of the international conflicts, as the price tag attached to them is smaller than that accompanying a straightforward military operation. The United States is the world’s frontrunner in employing sanctions: Since the end of World War II it has imposed them on no fewer than 45 countries.

It’s exactly American history that proves rogue regimes are capable of withstanding and even flourishing under sanctions. The most salient example is the boycott on Cuba, lasting since 1960. Despite all its efforts, Washington has not succeeded in making the citizens of Cuba depose Castro, and it was solely the dictator’s ill health that caused his replacement by his brother Raul.

Incorporation of Clandestine Operations Is a Must

Israel too has a fruitless experience with sanctions being a single course of action. Hamas’ victory in the elections to the Palestinian Authority in 2006 and its violent takeover of the Gaza Strip led to the imposition of sanctions backed by an Israeli siege on Gaza; the hope had been that the Palestinian people would independently understand the damage Hamas inflicts on them and act for its discharge.

However, precisely because of the blockade, all of Gaza’s residents have become tied to the apron strings of [Hamas’] rule, and Israel was forced to resort to military operations in order to stop rocket fire into its territory. In fact, in every case in the history of the Middle East that involved the use of economic sanctions as an instrument for reaching political goals, without activating other leverages, the harm has immeasurably outweighed the gain.

Last month marked the sixth anniversary of Security Council Resolution 1737 that allowed for sanctions on Iran, including the non-delivery of raw materials, equipment and technology for uranium enrichment, nuclear activities and ballistic missiles, a ban on exports of munitions to Iran, the freezing of assets, travel restrictions for Iranian officials and more.

The Americans have approached carrying out the task earnestly, and later began to put pressure on banks and financial institutions — aiming to limit Tehran’s business connections. In retrospect, it’s obvious that Iran’s eagerness to acquire nuclear weapons was only bolstered. On the other hand, those were cloak-and-dagger steps taken against the nuclear program that managed to hinder it, if not shut it completely.

The conclusion from the historical analysis is clear-cut: Sanctions on their own won’t help, and they are to be combined with outright covert tactics and a serious military option on the table. The events of the past weeks indicate that there already are some who realize this.