In a setback for President Obama's administration, Russia announced
on Tuesday that
threatening Iran with sanctions for its nuclear program would be "counterproductive
administration had hoped that scaling back
the U.S. missile shield
in Europe would win Russian support for sanctions. In the blog world,
Obama's critics have pounced on the issue, slamming him a second time for giving up the missile shield (which was of debatable benefit
) for nothing. On the other side of the coin, some analysts argue
that economic sanctions wouldn't curb Iran's nuclear ambitions and in fact, may actually help Ahmadinejad.
- More Nobel-Worthy Diplomacy, writes Jennifer Rubin at Commentary: "This is what constitutes smart diplomacy: pull the rug out from under
your friends, renounce your own interests, defer confronting enemies of
the U.S., and then declare the wonders of interdependence and
multilateral cooperation. It's the stuff of Nobel Peace prizes." Steve Gilbert at Sweetness & Light adds, "Alas, we fully realize that this is merely the official signal to
the world that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have completely caved to the
Russian position on Iran. You see all the good that has come from giving up that missile shield in Europe?"
- Russia Was Never Going to Agree to Sanctions, writes Boris Morozov at The Jerusalem Post: "Russia isn't willing to forgo its economic
relations with Iran. It benefits from the construction of a nuclear
power station as it competes for supplying the necessary raw materials
and supplies Iran with different types of weapons (including
anti-aircraft), not to mention regular trade. This is probably one of
the main reasons Russia is interested in preserving good relations with
- Sanctions Wouldn't Have Worked Anyway, writes Djavad Salehi-Isfahani at the Brookings Institute: "The
case for sanctions as an effective foreign policy tool is strongest
when the country in question is brimming with internal political
tensions caused by years of stagnation or decline in living standards,
which sanctions can intensify to bring about the desired policy shift
by the country's rulers. This is not the situation in Iran....Against
this backdrop, engagement, as originally espoused by President Obama,
may have a better chance of diffusing the crisis."
- Sanctions Might Actually Help Ahmadinejad, adds Alireza Nader at the Rand Corporation: "A lot of companies that have invested in the
economy are linked to the Revolutionary Guard," says the Iran expert. "You can make the argument that if you
scare away foreign investors, you are strengthening the Guard. Under sanctions, the underground economy would increase and funnel more money to them." The Huffington Post's Melody Moezzi agrees: "Iran has been under sanctions for the past 30 years, and its behavior
has not changed as a result. What has changed, however, is the social
and economic condition of the Iranian people," she writes. "Foreign sanctions or military attacks would thus prove
counterproductive in that they would only strengthen the regime by
punishing the Iranian people for the actions of their illegitimate
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments
or send an email to the author at
jhudson at theatlantic dot com.
You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.