Last August, a letter pushed by AIPAC from Mark Kirk (R-IL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), 92 Senators called for the White House to impose sanctions on Iran’s central bank, Bank Markazi.
Though the Wall Street Journal reported that such action could be considered an act of war, Kirk posed an ultimatum to the Obama Administration–either issue sanctions or we’ll pass legislation to force your hand:
“The administration will face a choice of whether it wants to lead this effort or be forced to act,” Mr. Kirk said.
Now, in the aftermath of the alleged assasination plot, the White House is signaling that it may be going forward with the central bank sanctions.
Such sanctions–if heeded by the international community–would destabilize the rial, Iran’s currency, and make it nearly impossible for Iranians to to import and access basic foodstuffs and medical supplies.
It is clear that the Iranian government, as it is now, receives little to no legitimacy from democratic consent. Yet the strategy going forth is to actively punish the population with sanctions on Bank Markazi, Iran Air, Mahan Air et al and not the government with the expectation that punishing the people is holding the government responsible for its failings and violence.
Kirk says that if we can impose enough punishment on ordinary Iranians, it will spark a revolution that would topple Iran’s government. Such arguments are not supported by the evidence. Look at the sanctions in place against North Korea, where the population today is starving. Or the sanctions against Saddam–some of the most stringent, economically devastating sanctions imaginable against Iraq’s oil exports and banking system. They did nothing to displace Saddam’s regime, which managed to deflect all of the suffering onto the population. Ultimately those measures killed half a million ordinary Iraqis and ultimately paved a path to a disastrous war.
Such a step is effectively collective punishment of the people of Iran. But literally starving average Iranians is just fine according to Kirk, who moonlights as a human rights supporter (as long as supporting human rights means ratcheting up hawkish Middle East policies, not actually protecting human rights).
