NPR: Weighing the Chances of the Sanctions Against Iran

Weighing the Chances of the Sanctions Against Iran

The White House announced tough new sanctions against key elements of the Iranian regime on Thursday, but what are the chances they'll actually work?

To find out, one thing you can look for is a "black knight" lurking in the background, says Daniel Drezner, associate professor of international politics at Tufts University. He tells me that a "black knight" is a country that provides the sanctioned regime with the very things the sanctioner just tried to take away.

Considering the rhetoric coming from Moscow these days, Russia might fit that description for Iran. China might try on a knight's helmet as well.

Other things to look for that can help predict sanctions' success? Drezner, who wrote The Sanctions Paradox: Economic Statecraft and International Relations, says there's also the expectation of future conflict. If the sanctioned country believes that bowing to the sanctions won't rule out clashes in the future, then the penalties are ineffective. The leaders just shrug and say, "What's the difference?"

And, as Drezner says, Iran is expecting a lot of future conflict with the United States.

Another factor to consider comes from NPR's global finance guru, Adam Davidson. Adam tells me that most economists believe that the more totalitarian the regime, the less likely financial sanctions are to work. And the more entrepreneurial the country, the more effective sanctions can be. (So they didn't work very well against Saddam Hussein, who controlled the Iraqi economy, but they did have an effect in South Africa, where there was a strong independent business class.)

Iran? Well, it does have a small business class, but most of the key sections of the economy are controlled by the regime and its agents, like the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force. What's likely to happen, Adam says, is that the entrepreneurs will get squeezed, while those targeted by the sanctions will increase their share of a shrinking pie.

12:02 PM ET | 10-26-2007 | permalink

Comments (Send a comment)

Man, I am so sick of world politics. None of it really matters anyway. It's all just a matter of economy, do people get the things they need to satisfy their instincts for food and family? DONE that's the only relevant question.

But we have all of these incompetent, ambitious, politicians, slimy, weaselly people who, in the natural world would probably get torn to bits by wild animals, work their way to the top of this rickety hierarchy of corruption, and then start fighting each other for resources. Sending poor young people to go die for meaningless causes.

Well, if I may proffer a solution:

ANARCHY RULES

Sent by Jody Sol | 12:32 PM ET | 10-26-2007

I am not sure what is it that we (U.S.) e accusing Iran of doing? I hope some one out there will give me a clue. History has it, that post WWII, Iran developed into a democratic society- (ie. Mossadec- 1953) that was overthrown by anglo- american intelligence, in search of the resources of that country. Afterwards the Shah (a pseudo fascist dictatorial Monarch) was installed by US, and ruled until his overthrow in the late 1970s. Many perished and were executed during those times. Not to mention the Shah gave "cart blanche" to US in dealing with the resources of his country, so long as he was personally enriched by US.

The fact remains that WE have used those tactics for many years in other countries we wish to destabilize and whose resources WE wish to take.
So, I hope cool heads will prevail in this debate, smart minds look in to the past, and see we are reaping what we sowed many years ago in the middle east (this is just one example of many).

Let US develop technologies that will render the world price of oil irrelevant!! Only the rich and the rich oil companies are benefiting from these incursions into other countries, and the not so rich are the ones sacrificing to make it happen, by killing citizens of other countries for absolutely no good reason.

For those of you that would argue we are GIVING democracy to anyone, when was the last time we did that?? I am a veteran of Gulf War I- we went to liberate an invaded country, but we INSTALLED a monarch back in power, in stead of installing DEMOCRACY. I lost several buddies there- for what??------OIL!

It is hard time for US as citizens to take a hard look at what OUR Government is doing FOR US. I know they are doing it all FOR THEM!

Sent by Bill G Middleburg, FL | 3:49 PM ET | 10-26-2007

I would just like to say that the money will talk, and the bull S@#* will walk. It will not work.

Sent by Nick NIck | 5:23 PM ET | 10-26-2007

The US/Iran story simply reminds me the Wolf and Lamb story! The folly of the lamb is: that it did abuse some one who is distantly related to the Wolf. Or its like the Godfather story. Don Barzini(Iraq), Philip Tattaglia (Iran),Tessio (Afghanistan), Don Cuneo (Pakistan),Moe Greene (Siria)and possibly Don Zaluchi (North Korea) will be taken care by our own Yale graduate, Alpacino!!! One by one!! For Saudi Arab: we need Godfather IV. But they are on the list!!

Sent by anser azim | 5:43 PM ET | 10-26-2007

If I were Iran and had American troops on my left border and my right border, led by a man who clearly stated his intent to overthrow my government, I'd want nukes a.s.a.p. because that's really the only way that Iran can guarantee we won't invade it. Same reason the Soviets wanted the A-bomb in '49 is the same reason the Iranians want it now. Protection and projection of it's own people and power. Sanctions work? Probably the only people fooled by that are it's proponents.

Sent by John R. Otten | 8:25 PM ET | 10-26-2007

Typical liberal fools. America is always at fault and those killing innocent Americans, Israelis, Iraqis, Lebanese and Iranians must have a "good" reason to do so because America is so "evil."

The self loathing, blame America left can't get beyond their own selfish little bubble.

Sent by Mark E. | 7:00 PM ET | 10-28-2007

One of my sons is enlisting now, and some of my other children are considering it. If the requirements were relaxed I would go, because I believe Iran and Syria are a serious threat to our way of life, just like their Sunni brethren of Al Quaeda. Ask the non-Shia Lebanese if the mullahs are rational or peaceful, while Hezbollah rearms under the watchful eye of the UN. Be sure to take a straw for your koolaid when you put your heads in the sand.

Sent by Bryan, College Station TX | 10:06 PM ET | 10-28-2007

I am an Iranian, let me briefly give you some insight about Iran's political scene, then you will find out how wrong is the US policy (I am sorry, Israel policy) against Iran. Among the wide spectrum of political power, in Iran, there are two, which are more critical: ultra radicals and ultra reformists.
Iran is a proud country and all Iranian, including the mullahs, like to be recognized and respected worldwide. So is up to the world (especially the west) to use this natural tendency of Iranian to engage Iran, and push the political spectrum of the country more toward the good side which are the reformist. By contrast, using sanctions or harsh word, will be more and more in the favor of ultra radicals, and will give them even more internal support(which they have very little of it in the normal condition).These stupid ultra radicals, are scared of nothing, and are more than happy to have a bloody war with the American and west.
So, I think US and west am doing absolutely no good to anybody by pushing on the confrontation. If the goal is to make the ultra radicals blink, they won't. If the goal is a peaceful and democratic Iran, involved in international peace, the only way to get it is exactly the opposite way and it mean the need for more economic engagement. Iran proved in the past that can be a responsible country if is counted as a respected member of international community.
As an Iranian, I found the economic sanction against Iran as a big mistake, and very fruitless. For above mentioned reason, sanctions will radicalize more the Iranian leaders, and will paralyze the reforms inside Iran. Is the time for a courageous policy change in Washington, for the leader who really cares about the interests of American in order to prevent a catastrophic war, if the goal is really the world???s peace.

Sent by K.Shakiba | 2:22 AM ET | 10-29-2007

We are currently in a state of "confrontation" with Iran; "sanctions" economic or otherwise are totally permissable measures within the specturm of international relationships in terms of confrontation. Confrontation is not overt conflict and in the context of confrontation we must utilize all measures available to obtain the desired endstate. The endstate is an Iran without nuclear weaponry. The rhetoric of the leadership in Iran is overtly hostile to the U.S. and far from a peace promoting stance in the Middle East. Realities of the world and the desire for peace dictate that nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian leadership is a far from desirable outcome. If you're fully committed to a peaceful world, you should easily recognize that an Iran with offensive nuclear capability is utterly counterproductive to world peace. Examine the stated objectives of the Iranian regime. Is there another conclusion?

Sent by Charles L Grach | 8:02 AM ET | 10-29-2007

Why, in covering the news about Iran the media take Bush assertions that Iran wants a nuclear bomb like proven true while Iran denies this? Remember WMS? He lied to us! Where are the thought question from the media? Other countries don't believe this

Sent by Eusebio Ramirez | 11:01 AM ET | 10-29-2007

Note to Mark E. The first rule of war is to know your enemy. Is that too 'liberal' of a thought for you? If you look at this situation through Iran's point of view and understand where they are coming from, you will stand a better chance of handling the situation successfully, period. Don't look for Bush, Cheney, the neocons or conservative Rush/Savage/O'Rielly pundits to do that. They are not in the business of rational thinking or finding solutions. I do want to thank you for giving us all a clear view of the mentality of the far right, the total lack of reasonable argument in your post, without facts or substance really, purely driven by emotion and reactionary thinking. It is this absence of any political sophistication or knowledge that the warmongers now leading our nation count on to keep them in power and the war machine going strong. For the record, I do not loathe myself, liberals or America. I reserve my loathing for you and all who think like you. My loathing is for your camp exclusively. That being said, I would also like to thank K. Shakiba for giving us the Iranian point of view. I agree 100 percent with K. Shakiba's post. The way to keep Iran from going nuclear is to undermind the support of the religious mullahs and help the reformists. A policy of direct military confrontation does just the opposite. It gives more power to the wrong people and pushes them further toward obtaining nuclear weapons. We are being led by a pack of fools in Washington who think they know what they are doing but do not. After the debacle of Iraq, why does anyone doubt this?

Sent by John R. Otten | 2:39 PM ET | 10-29-2007

Another note to Mark E.

The bigoted, arrogant, self righteous, ethnocentric, greedy, belligerent, intolerant, INCOMPETENT, willfully ignorant, irrational right isn't any better.

Sent by angsty | 6:13 PM ET | 10-29-2007

John, you are right about the neocons and conservative pundits. Their view is always the messenger, not the message. Anything the conservative pundits say or write is ture, simply because they are conservatives in "good standing". Anything reported by the Washington Post is false simply because it is the "liberal media". Neocons are convinced that they know better than anybody else, and that facts are in the eye of the beholder, and most importantly, that the ends justify the means. They do not want to debate, and govern via democracy, but would rather rumor-monger, and issue executive fiats. Alas, closed minds are hard to reach.

Sent by Tom Granaas | 6:39 PM ET | 10-29-2007

Send a Comment

Comments are reviewed and edited by NPR prior to display. All comments will be read, but not all will be posted.

NPR reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its Web site or in any medium now known or unknown the e-mails and letters that we receive. We may edit them for clarity or brevity and identify authors by name and location. For additional information, please consult our Terms of Use.

E-mail this Page

Recipient's e-mail address:	» Up to twelve addresses, separated by commas.
Your e-mail address:
Your name:
Personal message (optional, 600 characters max):
Your NPR member station:	» List of local stations (PDF)
Are you a member of your local NPR station?	Yes No
Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No
May we contact you with information about NPR programming and services? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No

(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected 'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy for more information.)

Tom Regan

Blogger

About Us

This year's election cycle has been one of the most exciting in memory. At the NPR News Blog we'll do our best to bring you interesting, informative -- and controversial -- stories from our own reporters and bloggers, as well as the rest of the best of the Internet and blogosphere. And we hope you'll let us know what you think as well.

Want to learn more? Be sure to read our Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.