Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

July 11, 2007 |  6 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Dirk Niebel

Europe Must Stop Iran

Dirk Niebel: Britain, France and Germany should get tough on Tehran through European economic pressure. Nuclear progress has already emboldened the government, and the West must take decisive action before it is too late.

Iran is doing more these days than just ignoring global concerns over its nuclear program. The Islamic Republic is increasingly taunting the international community, making clear that it has no intention of abandoning its program and almost daring Western nations to stop it.
The situation raises serious questions and opportunities for Europe, which is increasingly threatened by Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned Europe not to take Israel’s side in any dispute between Tehran and Tel Aviv. Meanwhile, Tehran and its terrorist client Hezbollah continue to recruit and train thousands of suicide bombers for possible attacks on the Continent.

The EU-3—Britain, France and Germany—have spent three fruitless years trying to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear program in exchange for trade and other benefits. They’ve come to realize—as some Iranian officials had told them from the start—that Tehran never intended to cut a deal.

The recent change of leadership in Paris could bring about a new European approach, one that relies much more on economic pressure. Clearly, the limited United Nations sanctions against Iran are not doing the trick. The EU-3 should rally the world’s major industrialized powers to tighten restrictions on trade and investment with Iran, which could prove very effective. Iran’s economy, including its energy sector, depends heavily on foreign investment. Although Iran is one of the world’s largest oil producers, it must import refined petroleum from abroad. Thanks to its dysfunctional economy, living standards for the average Iranian are already falling. This is fueling popular discontent, making the ruling mullahs increasingly nervous. The EU-3 is well-positioned to build a G-8 consensus on this issue. It can serve as a broker between the U.S., which wants to ramp up economic pressure while retaining a military option in case it fails, and Russia, which wants to prevent a larger U.S. military presence in the area.

And there is no time to lose. The International Atomic Energy Agency recently reported that Iran has made surprising progress in mastering the nuclear cycle. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei believes Iran might be just three years away from producing nuclear weapons. A day after the IAEA issued its report, President Ahmadinejad made his intentions clear in a nationally televised speech: “The Iranian nation today has industrial nuclear technology and..it will never retreat even one step from this path.”

Emboldened by its nuclear progress, Iran’s government is ramping up the repression of its own people and Western citizens. Special “vice squads” are cracking down on people accused of “immoral behavior.” On May 10, for instance, security forces reportedly arrested over 80 young men at a birthday party on suspicions of being gay. The police led those arrested to the street, stripped many to the waist, and beat them until their backs and faces were bloody, according to Human Rights Watch. Young women who appear in public with their hair not fully covered are increasingly subject to arrests and beatings. The suppression of ethnic minorities is also rising. Over the past several months, Iranian security officials have carried out large-scale arrests and incommunicado detentions of Iranian Arabs, Kurds and Azeris, according to Amnesty International. The use of torture is widespread.

Westerners also face more risks when traveling to Iran. Haleh Esfandiari, a dual Iranian-American national and director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, was arrested in early May when she came to visit her 93-year-old mother. Charged with “crimes against national security,” Ms. Esfandiari is being held in solitary confinement in the notorious Evin prison. Two other Iranian-Americans, Kian Tajbakhsh, who is working for the Open Society Institute of George Soros, and businessman Ali Shakeri, are being held on similar charges.
An Iran armed with nuclear weapons will only feel freer to suppress its own people and expand its influence across the region. The fact that Iran has offered to share its nuclear knowledge with other states and groups and hinted at even using nuclear weapons itself paints a frightening scenario. German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned the West last year that it must avoid the mistakes of the 1930s when the world did not react strongly enough to the rise of Adolf Hitler. It is Europe’s duty to ensure that the past is not the prologue to the future.


Mr. Niebel is the secretary general of the Free Democratic Party, Germany’s largest opposition party, and a member of the Bundestag.

This article first appeared on the Wall Street Journal and is reprinted here with kind permission from the author. It has been modified from its original version. Click here to view the original article.


Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Oliver  Hauss

July 11, 2007

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Tough economic sanctions are precisely what Ahmadinejad needs. While as it stands, he is perceived as a loose cannon even by many Iranians up to and including parts of the clergy, making the people of Iran suffer is a surefire way to rally the people behind the hardliners. And making the people, not the leadership of Iran, suffer is the only thing that tougher sanctions will achieve. These calls completely ignore the cultural realities in the region, despite the fact that they fell flat on their face in neighboring Iraq. Not even at the brink of war did Saddam Hussein strive to appear too compliant with western demands. If immediate invasion and loss of power aren't enough of a threat, it can only be called naive that sanctions should be.
 
Philipp  Rock

July 11, 2007

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
There are no lessons from the Iraq sanctions that can be applied to the Iranian case. Obviously Iraq did not possess WMD or advanced research programmes that Saddam Hussein could have given up under the pressure of sanctions, the same does not apply to Iran making it a completely different case. But it is true that more than just sanctions are needed to alter the policies of the Iranian regime. What we need is a sticks and carrots approach that offers incentives in the case Iran complies with the demand of the international community. Such offers might convince moderate clerics and politicians in Iran that it is in the best interest of their country to sideline Ahmadinejad and his extremist cronies and cut a deal with the international community.
Tags: | Iran | WMDs |
 
Valentina  Klausen

July 11, 2007

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Thank you Mr. Niebel for your great article. Its about time foreign policy is back on the FDP's agenda. While I disagree with Ms. Merkel's comparison of 1930's Germany and todays Iran, I support the notion behind this article.

Oliver- I'm not too sure if economic sanctions are really bound to fail, and play into Ahmadinejad's hands: if one looks at North Korea for example, sanctions did actually work. Last weeks gasoline riots in Iran might be an indication that the same could be true for Iran. It was (at least to my knowledge) the first time Iranians openly opposed their president, but maybe it was only the first time, the Western press got wind of it. I have to agree with Philip on this one: speak softly and carry a big stick. But don't be afraid to use it!
Tags: | Iran | EU 3 |
 
Oliver  Hauss

July 11, 2007

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
@Philipp:
Your comment is contradictory: Precisely BECAUSE Saddam didn't have any WMDs he could have given up, he, according to "western" expectations, should have found it easy to fully comply with the demands to hand over records and let the inspectors go where they want -he didn't have anything to hide after all. Yet he STILL acted as if he did.

How do you suppose you are going to convince "moderate clerics and politicians in Iran" when, instead of acting selectively, you throw a big stone at the entirety of Iran? There WERE moderates at the helm before in Iran. "Incentives" to comply with "demands" are unlikely to bring any results. I doubt anyone will be willing to generate the impression of having sold out. It would also be to no avail, since the person doing so would likely have disqualified himself for further positions of influence. When are we going to realize that there are very normal people in Iran and treat them as very normal people, instead of ordering everyone around? When are we going to realize that ordering people around is unlikely to generate much benevolence, even if it achieves some short-term goals? Moderates would not without justification ask "What is your real goal here? That Iran has no nuclear weapons, period, or that Iran is not a threat but rather a good partner on the diplomatic level of anyone?" Talking about carrots and sticks is somewhat strange when there is no choice between the two, but rather carrots only come with being hit by a stick.

@Valentina:

What sanctions would have worked in North Korea? The average population has been on the brink of starving for ages. The sabre-rattling that Korea has been exposed to in past years had actually entrenched the position of North Korean negotiatiors up to and including the supposed nuclear test late last year. It was only when not just economic aid but political concessions were actually made that the situation changed -and then very rapidly.

I find your notion that this was the first time that Iranians openly opposed their president somewhat odd. Ahmadinejad came into power when during elections, Iranians ousted the reformists and brought the hardliners back into power. This was not the least because the reformists didn't bring improvement of the situation of the average Iranian, or especially the poor, that was deemed significant. Yes, the clerics banned a lot of reformists from running, but there were reformists in the election. While it might be possible that if Iranians are disappointed by hardliners as well, they switch back, that is quite a gamble. Dissatisfaction has so far driven them towards the hardliners, not away from them, and material need, more often than not, fosters extremism especially of the kind that blames outsiders.

As for the fuel riots, iranian carmakers are already adapting to the problem of processed fuel imports by developing cars that can use both gasoline and natural gas consumption capable cars.

As for speaking softly and carrying a big stick, it depends on two points: That you actually speak softly--this was lacking for quite a while especially from the side of the US. And that you carry a stick that will actually hurt the right people. And in using the stick, you have to be sure that you don't hurt yourself in doing so--with one of the largest oil producers, this is dicey business. Sanctions can backfire big time via the oil price. The IEA just warned of an impending oil supply crunch. What effect do you think an even more aggressive approach towards Iran would have under these circumstances on the oil--and thus gas--prices? Do you want to wait for the fuel riots in Germany or the US?

 
Thomas  Haelsig

July 15, 2007

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The only positive thing I can identify out of this issue is the fact that this should be a further motivation for America and Europe to increase their own sustainable energy supplies and to bring an end to their oil dependency, where a dramatic increase of the oil price effects the entire economy.

As the Security Council already stated that :"after more than three
years of Agency [ IAEA ] efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran’s nuclear
programme, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern, and
that the IAEA is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurances about
the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran "

What this means that there is absolutely no level of trust between the IAEA and Iran concerning its nuclear program and something comparative has never existed (and as I believe won't happen in the near future).

Compared to North Korea, which has absolutely no opportunities to threaten the rest of the world (besides pursuing a nuclear program) Iran can still stop their oil production and cause severe damage to the international economy and this is the problem why the international community has to follow a different, more moderate strategy compared to their approach North Korea.

Of significant importance are also the regional players, such as China, South Korea and Japan that pressurized North Korea and to a certain extent implemented actions called for by UN resolutions such as trade embargoes.

This regional pressure is small on the Iran issue, since the elected governments of Afghanistan and Iraq probably have little credibility from Iran's point of view anyway and additionally other countries in the region (mainly Syria) have little problem with Iran opposing the United States and threatening the existence of Israel.

If the int. community implements economic sanctions and embargoes, it is important that all countries adhere to these restrictions, which I fear will be a difficult task, especially with Russia and China. But I do believe that these countries will eventually come to the solution that Iran with nuclear weapons is more harmful than a shortage of oil.



 
Michael John Williams

July 16, 2007

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Phillipp we have been offering Iran a sticks and carrot approach. The EU-3 and US have put some very good offers on the table - offers that allow Iran to have nuclear power, but limit Iran's ability to make a weapon. Sanctions are the stick and to be blunt, Iran needs a beating. Dirk is correct in asserting that Europe needs to get tougher on Iran in this regard. If Europe wants to avoid military conflict then the best thing is to get tough on this front in the hope that such action will forstall a military confrontion.
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Anna  Przybyll
Anna Przybyll
"A wise old owl lived in an oak The more he..."

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?