With the Iranian regime’s recent launch of advanced ballistic missiles, Iranian hardliners are testing the resolve of the U.S. and its partners to confront Tehran’s aggression that challenges the nuclear agreement that came into effect earlier this year, writes Peter Harrell, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of State for Counter Threat Finance and Sanctions.
“A forceful U.S. and international response to the Iranian missile tests is not only consistent with the nuclear agreement—it will increase the odds that the nuclear agreement itself remains durable over time. The U.S. Congress, which is currently developing potential sanctions bills, is right to demand action on this issue”, Mr. Harrell wrote on Wednesday in The Hill.
“Iran’s decision to test the resolve of the U.S. and our allies is no surprise. Iran has a lengthy history of testing the U.S. and our allies, and it was clear throughout the nuclear negotiations that Iran would continue to test the international community’s resolve after the deal came into force. This is precisely why a forceful sanctions response is so important: A weak response will encourage the Iranians to continue testing the boundaries of the nuclear agreement, setting up a situation where Iran believes it can gradually walk away from its nuclear commitments without meaningful consequences. A forceful response, on the other hand, will send a clear signal that there is zero tolerance for violations and discourage further Iranian cheating.”
Harrell argued that the U.S. and its partners need to impose sanctions with “real economic teeth.”
“Some policymakers may be tempted to resolve the current situation by sending a symbolic message to Iran while avoiding antagonizing international partners, for example by imposing a narrow set of sanctions against individual Iranian military officials or small Iranian defense companies involved in the missile program. But these kinds of sanctions rarely have meaningful economic bite, since most Iranian officials and defense companies have few economic ties to the U.S. or our allies. The Iranians would rightly perceive such sanctions as a largely symbolic message that refrained from imposing real costs on Tehran. Such sanctions would be unlikely to deter further Iranian aggression or prevent them from further testing the limits of the nuclear deal.”
“The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—the division of the Iranian government behind the missile tests—has important business interests in Iran’s construction and mining sectors, and U.S. officials could significantly expand the number of IRGC-linked companies in these sectors subject to U.S. and international sanctions. U.S. officials could also begin to tee up a set of tougher sanctions, such as financial sanctions, that would be imposed if Iran continues its missile tests, to signal that the U.S. and are partners are prepared to escalate further.”
For the nuclear deal to remain credible, Harrell argued, the U.S. and its partners need to make sure that Iran’s regime understands that the “consequences for cheating are severe.”
