By Greg C. Reeson
The United States has two primary worries when it comes to Iran: its aggressive support for terrorism and its relentless pursuit of a suspected nuclear weapons program. Given these concerns, the United States has for years tried to persuade Iran, through both diplomatic and semi-punitive measures, to abandon both and to comply with a multitude of United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iran’s behavior. Thus far, nothing has worked.
Iran continues to be the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, using groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iraqi Shiite militias to wage proxy battles against Israel and the West. The use of terrorism gives Iran flexibility in the region and a voice in multiple conflicts, expanding Iranian power and influence, and Iran will not easily give it up. Similarly, Iran views its nuclear program as an essential element in its efforts to solidify its position as the dominant power in the Middle East. Tehran has repeatedly stated that it has no intention of abandoning its nuclear agenda, and its actions continue to match its rhetoric.
President Obama entered office with a promise of renewed diplomatic vigor toward Iran, and in his first two months in office he has made good on that pledge. Mr. Obama has reached out to the Iranians, officially and through back channels, with his most recent effort being a video message to the Iranian people and the leadership in Tehran on the occasion of the Persian New Year. Predictably, his overtures were immediately rebuffed.
This is hardly surprising. The United States and its European allies have been strung along by Iran for the better part of a decade now. Diplomacy not backed by a credible willingness and ability to impose punitive measures for non-compliance lacks meaning. Sanctions imposed both within and outside of the UN framework have thus far lacked substance, with Russia and China refusing to entertain the idea of a package that might endanger their significant financial interests in Iran. A military strike against Iran, given the risk of a wider regional war and the difficulties inherent in such an operation, is not a credible option. So what can be done?
The United States and Europe really have only two options: accept the likelihood of a nuclear-armed Iran or hit Iran where it really hurts – its economy, or more specifically, its gasoline imports. By most estimates, Iran imports about 40 percent of its gasoline because it is sorely lacking in domestic refining capacity. Most, if not all, of the companies that provide Iran with its gasoline also do extensive business with the United States and Europe. The choice should be made clear: you’re either with us, or you’re with Iran. Which is it going to be? Cutting off Iran’s gasoline imports would have an immediate and meaningful effect on Iranian society, and would likely force Tehran’s hand to finally get serious about the concerns of the international community. Unless the U.S. and its allies are prepared to hit Iran where it hurts, and cut off the gasoline supply from outside sources, Tehran will continue to make the United States and Europe look weak and foolish.