Sanctions
Against Iran
As the drumbeat for military action against Iran grows louder, some
members of Congress are calling to expand the longstanding U.S. trade
ban that bars American companies from investing in that nation. In fact,
many war hawks in Washington are pushing for a comprehensive
international embargo against Iran. The international response has been
lukewarm, however, because the world needs Iranian oil. But we cannot
underestimate the irrational, almost manic desire of some
neoconservatives to attack Iran one way or another, even if it means
crippling a major source of oil and destabilizing the worldwide economy.
Make no mistake about it: Economic sanctions are acts of aggression.
Sanctions increase poverty and misery among the very poorest inhabitants
of targeted nations, and they breed tremendous resentment against those
imposing them. But they rarely hurt the political and economic elites
responsible for angering American leaders in the first place.
In fact, few government policies are as destructive to our economy as
the embargo.
While embargoes sound like strong, punitive action, in reality they
represent a failed policy that four decades of experience prove doesn't
work. Conversely, economic engagement is perhaps the single most
effective tool in tearing down dictatorships and spreading the message
of liberty.
It is important to note that economic engagement is not the same thing
as foreign aid. Foreign aid, which should be abolished immediately,
involves the US government spending American tax dollars to prop up
other nations.
Embargoes only hurt the innocent of a targeted country. While it may be
difficult for the leader of an embargoed nation to get a box of
American-grown rice, he will get it one way or another. For the poor
peasant in the remote section of his country, however, the food will be
unavailable.
It is difficult to understand how denying access to food, medicine, and
other products benefits anyone. Embargo advocates claim that denying
people access to our products somehow creates opposition to the despised
leader. The reality, though, is that hostilities are more firmly
directed at America.
Father Robert Sirico, a Paulist priest, wrote in the Wall Street Journal
that trade relations "strengthen people's loyalties to each other and
weaken government power." To imagine that we somehow can spread the
message of liberty to an oppressed nation by denying them access to our
people and the bounty of our prosperity is contorted at best.
For more than thirty years we have embargoed Cuba in an attempt to drive
Fidel Castro from power. Yet he remains in power. By contrast look at
the Soviet Union, a nation we allowed our producers to engage
economically. Of course the Soviet Union has collapsed.
