Threats are more effective
For Europe & Me I look at the EU’s threat of imposing sanctions against Iran’s oil sector:
Banning all imports of Iranian oil into the EU would contribute to this loss of revenue, though only to some extent. Were the EU to impose such measures, it seems likely that India and China would jump in to buy the extra crude oil. Even though China recently cut its purchases of Iranian oil by more than half, it likely that it is doing that to put pressure on the price, rather than to support the sanctions.
Furthermore, the economic relations between Iran and the EU function as a stability mechanism between the two. At present, a military attack against Iran would halt the flow of Iranian oil to the world. Similarly, the potential loss of revenue from the European Union restricts Iran’s willingness to advance its nuclear weapons programme. These last measures of restraint lower the threshold for irrational behaviour – on both sides. As history has shown, the threat of sanctions has a bigger impact than the sanctions themselves.
For that reason, the EU should keep the threat of cutting Iranian oil supply as a “stick” to use in the next round of talks on Iran’s nuclear programme. Several proposals for further negotiations have been made – by Turkey and Brazil in the so-called Teheran agreement; in a more recent Russian proposal; and in a new confidence-building measure proposed by former IAEA chief inspector Olli Heinonen. However, with Iranian elections coming up in 2012 and 2013 as well as US elections in November, it is unlikely that either side can allow itself to be seen as weak. But whilst success is unlikely, the EU should at least try to use its economic power to force Iran to the negotiation table. A weakened Iran or even a military conflict would be a gigantic destabilising factor in the Middle East – with severe global implications.
Read on at Europe & Me. Comments? Here, there or via twitter please!
leave a comment