This Week at War: Playing Sanctions Chicken

What the four-stars are reading -- a weekly column from Small Wars Journal.

BY ROBERT HADDICK | JULY 9, 2010

Do we have the guts to enforce the new Iran sanctions?

Last month, U.S. President Barack Obama succeeded in pushing another Iran sanctions resolution through the U.N. Security Council. That resolution gives countries the right (but not the obligation) to inspect ships suspected of carrying military and nuclear items the Security Council has banned from Iran. On July 1, Obama signed into law H.R. 2194, a statute that will allow the president to impose sanctions on people or companies anywhere in the world who deal with Iran's petroleum exploration and refining businesses. H.R. 2194 was a very popular bill; it passed 408-8 in the House and 99-0 in the Senate.

Obama now has all the sanction authority he could have hoped for. But now that he has these powers, will he have the will to use them? Employing the new sanctions will require Obama and the United States to experience some unpleasant side effects. The next phase of the tussle with Iran could involve a global game of chicken, and it's not clear who will blink first.

On July 6, the Washington Post ran a story about Iran's preparations for a naval clash in response to the shi- inspection provision of the Security Council resolution. The article discussed Iran's "asymmetric" tactics against the U.S. 5th Fleet which could involve anti-ship missile attacks supplemented with suicide speedboat and aircraft attacks on U.S. warships near Iran. U.S. commanders, informed by war-games and training exercises, claim to be ready for these tactics.

A naval clash would seem to play to the U.S. military's strong suit. An Iranian attack would allow U.S. air and naval power to punish a broad range of Iranian military targets. The United States would seem to possess "escalation dominance" in this scenario.

But Iran's strategy would be primarily political, not military. Even one minor hit on a U.S. warship, one photograph of gray smoke coming from a U.S. hull, would exceed expectations and would be an Iranian moral victory. More importantly, Iran would hope to turn its losses into a propaganda victory -- an example of the U.S. bully beating up a small country. From an economic perspective, the Obama team would likely ponder the implications for the global economy of a naval battle in the Strait of Hormuz. For all these reasons, it might be in Iran's interest to arrange a provocation over the ship-inspection provision, engage the United States in a game of chicken, and see whether or not the Security Council resolution will have any meaning.

Iran is not the only one that can play chicken over this issue. China's oil companies will soon be the dominant foreign player in Iran's energy sector. H.R. 2194's sanctions will place these Chinese companies, and many other Chinese companies dealing with Iran, in Obama's gun sights. Will he be willing to pull the trigger and risk a possible trade war with China, thus imperiling his goal of doubling U.S. exports over the next five years? Or will Obama use the bill's opt-out provisions, which the president noted in his signing statement, and render the statute something of a dead letter?

Sanctioning Iran is not free; it will require taking risks and possibly incurring economic and even military losses. Iran, and perhaps China, might soon test Obama's appetite for further escalation.

AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Robert Haddick is managing editor of Small Wars Journal.

BUDAHH

4:10 AM ET

July 10, 2010

Part of the reason so many people died is IRAN

THEY ARE KILLING AND SPONSORING THE DEATH OF U.S TROOPS IN iRAQ AFGHANISTAN, AND THE KILLING OF MANY CIVILIANS. THEY ARE THE NUMBER ONE STATE SPONSORS OF TERROR IN THE WORLD THE U.S CANNOT LET IRAN GO NUCLEAR BY ALL MEANS POSSIBLE

 

SIMPLETON

5:57 AM ET

July 10, 2010

Sanctions

The first people to break the totally unenforceable sanctions will be our so-called allies in Gulf Arab states, Turkey, and even Europe. U.S. will be forced to choose whether to apply secondary sanctions, which we never did under ILSA. Chinese don't have to do anything, but wait for the sanctions regime to break down. We have managed to paint ourselves into a corner.

 

ASHOK2718

8:09 AM ET

July 10, 2010

Can anyone Imagine how many nations can USA can take on

in one go ?

NO HOLDS BARRED.

Can you imagine which nations will be scrambling to buy US War bonds (thus betting on US to win war) in case US does goes to war ? My guess every nation with any money.

People comment without simply accessing capital base of US economy.

As one chinese book said and also an article somewhere in FP compared IRAN and USA. There was no comparison. People should remember that Iraq war was won within 2 weeks. It is the disbanding of Ba'ath army that took USA in. Lessons learned in recent wars may be applied here.

Moreover if US goes NATO goes and since US has stopped interfering in Russian affairs they might also cooperate in exchange for economic cooperation.

 

RAMIS

8:48 AM ET

July 10, 2010

chicken?

hahaha its so funny
porno sex video porno film

 

MARTY MARTEL

2:10 PM ET

July 10, 2010

Failure of US mission resides in Pakistan

Corruption in Afghanistan is NO different than one will see in any village in China or India. People in India and China do NOT turn to Taliban to solve the corruption problem.

US government is looking at the wrong reason for failure of US mission in Afghanistan. The root cause of failure for US Afghan mission has been the Bush blunder to allow Musharraf to evacuate Al Qaeda/Taliban cadres from Kunduz in November, 2001 when they were trapped against advancing Northern Alliance forces. That allowed Al Qaeda/Taliban to live and fight for another day.

Musharraf’s Pakistan relocated and sheltered those Al Qaeda/Taliban cadres to North Waziristan and Quetta from where those cadres are waging a jihad against US/NATO troops in Afghanistan ever since.

All American officers in southern Afghanistan know that they can not prevail in the ongoing military operations, unless Taliban strongholds across the Durand Line in North Waziristan and Baluchistan are neutralized. Adm Mullen and Gen Patraeus evidently do not want to acknowledge that hard options have to be considered if their soldiers are not to die at the hands of radicals, armed and trained across the Durand Line. This is where rubber meets the road for the famed General.

According to Afghan Taliban commanders’ interviews with Matt Waldman, a Harvard Professor, the Pakistani ISI orchestrates, sustains and strongly influences the Taliban insurgency movement. The Afghan Taliban commanders also say that ISI gives sanctuary to both Taliban and Haqqani groups, and provides huge support in terms of training, funding, munitions, and supplies. In the words of these Afghan Taliban commanders, this is ‘as clear as the sun in the sky’.

The ISI is said to compensate families of suicide bombers to the tune of 200,000 Pakistani rupees, claims the report by Matt Waldman. Thus US aid to bankrupt Pakistan goes directly to finance the death of US/NATO soldiers in Afghanistan. So US itself is the silent partner of Pakistan in the death of US/NATO soldiers in Afghanistan since 2002.

After having denied existence of Mullah Omar’s QST umpteen times on its soil, now Pakistan suddenly finds a way to bring about reconciliation between QST and Afghan government!

The most breath-taking part of this sordid saga is that US is NOT holding Pakistan responsible for sheltering, protecting and supporting Haqqani’s HQN network and Mullah Omar’s QST network all these years while those networks have been causing daily deaths of US/NATO soldiers ever since 2002 even though Pakistan was SUPPOSED to have joined US fight against same Taliban back in 2001!

Unless Obama stops Bush’s mollycoddling of Pakistan and Gates, Mullen, Petraeus trio stops justifying Pakistan’s terror connections, US Afghan mission is headed for failure no matter how much development assistance US pours in Afghanistan.

 

ASHOK2718

5:51 PM ET

July 10, 2010

 

ASHOK2718

5:54 PM ET

July 10, 2010

Oh yeah your stats

I believe stats don't stand much in front of a gun barrel.

Sparts : 300
Persia : many

Imaginary may be, so what ? so are all holy books

 

ASHOK2718

10:51 PM ET

July 10, 2010

I should Clarify

I am no fan of war, in fact I think that wars don't solve most things, but it is better if one knows his capacity otherwise needless blood is spilled.

 

YUEXIANG

8:21 AM ET

July 11, 2010

try

Dear customers, thank you for your support of our company.
Here, there's good news to tell you: The company recently
launched a number of new fashion items! ! Fashionable
and welcome everyone to come buy. If necessary, please
input: http://www.onseeking.com/ We need your support and trust!!

 

AARON WILLIAMS

3:31 PM ET

July 11, 2010

Sanctions and Diplomacy Wont Work

The Obama Administration is too naive to understand the real threat that Iran poses to the world. If Israel feels it can't rely on sanctions and diplomacy nomore then we have a serious problem. Imagine if Iran does develop a nuclear weapon with the capability to hit Israel and most of the Middle East, the region will be thrusted into an arms race with a looming war between Israel and Iran. This will seriously endanger the Middle East peace process and damage U.S.-Israeli relations. With two wars already being fought in the region I think Obama will not be enthusiastic about getting involved. If sanctions and diplomacy are to work then we have to get the Russians and Chinese involved and I'm not too sure Obama can get the job done the way it needs to be. Iran poses the greatest threat to American, Israeli and world security. In order for their to be a positive outcome of the peace process then the issue of Irans nuclear program has to be addressed. Obama has to know that a nuclear weapon won't only be beneficial to Iran but also to Hamas and Hezbollah.

 

AARON WILLIAMS

3:52 PM ET

July 11, 2010

Bottom Line

An Iranian nuclear weapon only makes things worse. We can't allow the Iranian theocratic regime to become a nuclear power that can bully its sunni Arab neighbors and blow Israel off the map. A nuclear weapon only makes the regime bold enough to think it can annex Iraq and other muslim countries with a shia population. Irans nuclear weapon would only start a regional arms race and likely a war. The insane theocratic regime would usher the world into another world war, Obama must be wise in dealing with this threat.

 

NICOLAS19

3:50 AM ET

July 12, 2010

Isn't America doing the same?

It's bullying Arab states, it annexed Iraq, it even used nuclear weapons in its history... can Iran do any worse than that?

 

ASHOK2718

6:21 AM ET

July 12, 2010

You mean would Iran do any worse if it had capacity ?

They have said repeatedly that they will wipe ......

and about Iran; a girl is about to be stoned there for adultery. She was put in prison at age of 14 so that she can be stoned when she is 18. WOW

Don't talk about morals. Many such things are just waiting to come out of this system if only they can get the capacity to do so.

 

ENGUZELSIN

5:52 PM ET

July 12, 2010

xnare

whore chicker!

porno
pornolar