According to Donald Trump, the world had a lucky escape last week. 'On Monday they [Iran] shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters,' he tweeted. 'We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike, I stopped it.' There is good reason to question virtually every aspect of this statement. Even the US military is unclear whether the drone was in Iranian airspace and the number of people affected is apparently drawn from thin air.
That said, Trump is clearly correct to highlight the precarious state of US-Iranian relations — a situation not helped by the fact that the Commander in Chief imposed a fresh wave of sanctions on Iranians on Monday (including 'Ayatollah Khomeini', Iran's previous Supreme Leader, who died 30 years ago).
As is widely known, but goes generally unmentioned in coverage of the unfolding crisis, the present escalation began when the US unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreed with Iran and four other states to limit Iran's capacity to develop a military nuclear program. Under the JCPOA, with which Iran has complied, sanctions were to be progressively lifted. Instead, not only have US sanctions been reimposed, but two subsequent waves of sanctions have been added by Congress or the President.
These sanctions — imposed in breach of international law — have also been the basis for questionable actions against third parties. Meng Wanzhou, Huawei's Chief Financial Officer and daughter of its founder, currently languishes in Canadian custody awaiting extradition to the US for allegedly breaching them. The European Union, itself a party to the JCPOA along with three of its members and others have also been threatened with sanctions by recent US legislation if they comply with the UN-endorsed treaty.
Against this background, as I previously argued in the case of Kim Jong-un, the first lesson would seem to be that Iran would be foolish if it did return to talks with the US. There seems precious little to talk about — and absolutely no assurance that the US would keep its side of the deal even if talks did result in the new and better deal the US has claimed it always wanted.
The other key takeaway from this sorry saga is the questionable utility of sanctions as the catch-all replacement of foreign policy which they have undoubtedly become. This conclusion does not require an endorsement of Iran's theocratic government. I have personal experience of work with refugees from Iran (who, by the way, are also persecuted by the US and its Australian allies — consider, for example, the case of award-winning Iranian-Kurdish refugee, journalist and author Behrouz Boochani, who has languished on Manus for years).
Nevertheless, there is nothing guaranteed to rally a people around its leaders (however unjust they are known to be) than war with a foreign power — especially when there is no obvious cause for it.
"Make no mistake, sanctions are indeed a form of war. They kill as effectively as missiles — and a good deal less discriminately."
And, make no mistake, sanctions are indeed a form of war. As Caitlin Johnstone notes, they kill as effectively as missiles — and a good deal less discriminately. It is certainly true that sanctions can make a difference in ending an unjust policy, but for this they have to be carefully targeted and calibrated to results. The apartheid era foreign minister of South Africa, Roelof ('Pik') Botha, noted after he took office as minerals minister under a democratic interim government that it was the sports boycott which played a major role in the ending of that evil regime.
There, however, it must be remembered that the sanctions were keyed to particular outcomes and were withdrawn when the government did what was demanded. South Africa, even during the worst excesses of the State of Emergency in the 1980s, never faced the sustained campaign of mass starvation and deprivation of medical supplies which faced Iraq for its non-existent 'weapons of mass destruction' and which provoked the following exchange on 60 Minutes on 5 December 1996 between reporter Lesley Stahl and Madeleine Albright:
Stahl: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.
It is true, of course, that some people see precisely this form of devastation as something to be desired, rather than avoided. Rudy Giuliani, Trump's lawyer, has boasted that sanctions would see Iranians selling their own organs for food. It is to be hoped that this brand of cruelty for its own sake — which leaves the US and its allies who support it in no moral position to preach democracy to the mullahs — is not one generally shared.
Fr Justin Glyn SJ has a licentiate in canon law from St Paul University in Ottawa. Before entering the Society he practised law in South Africa and New Zealand and has a PhD in administrative and international law.
Main image: US President Donald Trump (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)