The Impact of New Sanctions on Iran

As concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions continue to rise, the US and other European countries are contemplating new sanctions against Tehran’s oil sector.

What impact will new sanctions have on the country and can Iran’s threats about blocking the strait of Hormuz be taken seriously?

Anchor Lisa Mullins talks to Iran expert Dr. Trita Parsi.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: Today, Iran threatened once again to stop ships from moving through the strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. That’s an unsettling prospect. At least one sixth of the world’s oil flows through the strait. But today, Iran’s navy chief called closing it very easy for Iranian naval forces. A spokesperson for the US Fifth Fleet responded, the spokesperson said that the United States will not allow any disruption of traffic in the strait of Hormuz. Dr. Trita Parsi is the author of A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran. Can you tell us, Iran says it may close this vital oil trade route that is the strait of Hormuz if the US imposes more sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program. How credible do you think the threat really is?

Dr. Trita Parsi: I have to say I think it is largely bluster, but at some stage if the west continues with sanctions and particularly if some form of an oil embargo is imposed on Iran, then Iranians don’t have as much to lose from actually taking this step. Right now if they were to close the strait of Hormuz they would also shutdown their own oil exports, but if much of their oil exports already have been taken off the market because of an oil embargo, then Iran has less incentives not to play this card.

Mullins: Well, it has less incentive, but does Iran really want a war?

Parsi: Well, the thing is if there is an oil embargo that is imposed on Iran that is in and of itself viewed by Iran and there’s some support in international law, that is already an act of war, so that would be an Iranian response to a declaration of war.

Mullins: How is that considered an act of war in any sense because there certainly have been sanctions against Iran before. Iran has made threats before. Iran even if it is not to sell oil to the US or Europe could sell oil to China or Russia instead of the West.

Parsi: Any type of naval embargoes have to be approved by the UN Security Council to actually have the force of international law behind it. If it is not then it is considered an act of war. The current form of oil embargo that the US is discussing is not gonna get support in the Security Council as you mentioned because of the opposition from Russia and China. What we’re seeing is that we are in a confrontational dynamic. Both sides are trying to maximize the amount of pressure put on each other, and at some point we’re gonna lose sight of what the actual issue was, and we’re just trying to escalate further in order not to lose face. So I think there is unfortunately, a significant risk that this will get out of control and actually lead to an open warfare between the two countries.

Mullins: How do you think it’s gonna spiral out of control when so many parties here have so much at stake, particularly Iran itself.

Parsi: Right now there’s almost no communication between the different governments and as Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had warned right before he left office, he said that this lack of communication is very dangerous because it gives way for misperceptions. And when you misperceive you miscalculate. And when you miscalculate you escalate and suddenly there you have it, you have a war that you never intended to have.

Mullins: Well, not yet though. What are the aspects of diplomacy that could be exerted right now?

Parsi: Well, diplomacy is not going to be easy, nor is it gonna be quick. The diplomacy that the Obama administration pursued in 2009 essentially only lasted about two and a half months maximum. And there were only two, two and a half meetings directly with the Iranians. That’s not diplomacy and certainly not an exhaustion of diplomacy. But the political space to pursue that option does not exist in Tehran nor does it exist in Washington, and it’s forcing leaders to abide by the already very constrained political landscapes that they’re in and pursue escalation rather than pursuing conflict resolution.

Mullins: Just to be clear, what could once again, what could be done right now in terms of diplomacy that would prevent confrontation?

Parsi: Under best scenario you would start negotiations right away and negotiations would not be limited just to the nuclear issue. The nuclear issue is probably the toughest issue to resolve because the two sides have dug themselves in so deeply in their positions, but there are other areas, whether it is regional security, Afghanistan or other areas in which conversations and diplomacy can begin. Diplomacy is very much about reducing mistrust. And when you reduce mistrust and you increase transparency information about the other side, that in and of itself is a huge favor towards making sure that there are no accidental escalations.

Mullins: That’s Dr. Trita Parsi, author of A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.