Effective sanctions?

Pardon a little skepticism.

William P. Kucewicz pens a guest editorial in the beloved WSJ today (Free link, click away!) In it, he is pretty upbeat about the opportunity for effective sanctions against Iran

Condoleezza Rice, in signaling a new U.S. willingness to negotiate with Iran, also warned that "international isolation and progressively stronger political and economic sanctions" would follow if Tehran defies its international obligations by continuing to develop nuclear weapons. Although the likelihood of those sanctions increased yesterday after the Iranian regime rejected the U.S. offer, it has been the threat of such sanctions, and the crippling effect an international embargo would have on Iran's economy and exchequer, that have always been the likely catalysts for any possible negotiation.

There's simply no getting around the fact that you can't eat petroleum. Iran's 132.5 trillion barrels in proved oil reserves--10.2% of the world total--are of little benefit unless they're earning money. A trade embargo would hit Iran especially hard, because its economy and government budget are inordinately dependent on petrodollars. Oil shipments account for about 25% of GDP, represent 90% of total export earnings and provide as much as 50% of fiscal receipts.

Were we not still in the wake of "Oil for Food," I'd hop onboard the sanguine-train. Oh, and if China and Russia weren't pandering to Iran and Sudan, I'd feel better. And if I couldn't buy Cuban cigars and coffee (their coffee rocks!) in Ireland.

The fact is, somebody will end-around any sanctions to buy cheap oil. This will create a humanitarian crisis, yet will further enrich connected folks. Certainly long enough to develop noo-cyoo-lur weapons.

Again, Bullwinkle? That trick never works!

Iran Posted by jk at June 2, 2006 10:43 AM