Sanctions—why, exactly? and what Iran wants

(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in the United States would support a trade embargo against Iran, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 58 per cent of respondents support the imposition of economic sanctions if the country refuses to stop developing nuclear capabilities.

"Only" 36 percent would support the use of force against Iran????

There's a good piece here by seasoned arms control negotiator Thomas Graham about the consequences of sanctions:

Indeed, sanctions could have the effect of actually further weakening the international non-proliferation regime. This is so because Iran might, under such circumstances, consider withdrawal from the NPT so that it had no more nuclear obligations. A daily newspaper reported as close to the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khameni, said last week in its lead editorial that Iran should withdraw from the NPT if its case was simply sent to the Security Council. There has been one recent withdrawal from the NPT -- North Korea -- another, especially Iran, would be most unfortunate.

But America is sending mixed signals. Reports that India may have obtained a better deal from the United States with respect to cooperation in nuclear technology outside the NPT than Iran could ever obtain inside the treaty could make officials in Tehran wonder what the NPT is doing for Iran. This is not the kind of message that we should be sending.

Another important argument Graham makes is that Iran is doing what it's doing for a reason, and it has a desired goal. It wants something only the United States can give:

The objective of the negotiations has been for the Europeans to develop a package of inducements sufficient to persuade Iran to give up that part of its nuclear program that involves an effort to acquire nuclear fuel cycle technology (uranium enrichment and nuclear waste chemical-reprocessing equipment). All along, Iran has asserted that it has a right as an NPT non-nuclear weapon party to acquire the entire nuclear fuel cycle, as implied by Article IV of the treaty. But it was clear from the beginning of the negotiation that Iran was interested in not only economic and trade concessions and peaceful nuclear technology cooperation, but also security guarantees -- sometimes referred to as non-aggression commitments.

...Last week, the Europeans put their offer on the table and it was promptly rejected by Iran saying that it did not meet minimum expectations. Based on news reports describing the European offer, it appears to have been quite a good deal in the economic area but vague on security guarantees. Yet the talks are structurally flawed. As long as the United States stays out of the negotiations, the security guarantee, obviously, cannot include any commitment by the United States -- the country of greatest concern to Iran. So it should not be a surprise that the offer was rejected. Immediately, Iran recommenced uranium conversion -- but not actual enrichment activities -- with IAEA inspectors present.

Read the entire article...