Pressure on Iran - and the international community

It is the money in service of diplomacy. The global economy in the service of the foreign policy. Stuart Levey, an under secretary in the United States Treasury Department, explained the theory last year in a speech in Dubai: "Those who are tempted to deal with targeted high-risk actors are put on notice: They may be next."

In any case, the U.S., once again alone following yesterday's announcement that it is imposing sanctions on Iran independent of the United Nations Security Council, is trying to leverage its economic power to rachet up pressure on Iran - as well as on the international community.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in her testimony Wednesday at a Congressional hearing, revealed the increasing impatience of the Bush administration with the foot-dragging of the Security Council. "I've also been very clear to our allies that this is not something that can go on endlessly, that there is urgency to this issue," she said. Two rounds of sanctions passed successfully, but the third is bogged down. Perhaps senior officials are hoping this is what will nudge the Security Council into late action. If not for fear of Iran - then for fear of being shown as irrelevant.

Washington's belligerent tone has some of its more suspicious friends warning of an impending military attack. But talk of a military option is at this stage a mere diversion from the gray reality of sanctions. There is no reason to suspect the U.S. administration does not mean what it says: Sanctions are the tool of choice, with the hope that they will push Iran into recognizing that if it does not give in, the U.S. will crush its economy.

Experience has shown that sanctions imposed through the Security Council are more effective than those imposed by the U.S. alone. But since President George W. Bush explained to a reporter two years ago that, "We don't have much leverage with the Iranians right now," the architects of sanctions have come to believe more confidently that the economics of the 21st century present new possibilities. If promised profits of corporations and banks in Iran are high, all the U.S. can do is to show them how great the risk is. The CEOs and the stockholders will do the rest.

The U.S. of course wants to stop the Iranian nuclear program, but the roots of its dissipating patience should be sought on the Iraqi border. Senior Iraq advisor David Satterfield said this week, "There is no doubt in our minds whatsoever that the Revolutionary Guards are very much under the direction and command of the Iranian government. Full stop." That is, the government is dispatching the agents that are sabotaging every sign of American success.

Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, considered the administration's "moderates," are harsh realists. They support negotiations, but from a position of strength. They sought yesterday to demonstrate this strength and hurt Iran through tough, but non-military, means.

Today on Rosner's Domain:

Updated The changing face of American Jewry:
Chicago: Fixing the world, one neighborhood at a time

Previous blog:
The voice of the old Bush

Previous blog:
Is Haaretz really better than the New York Times?

What To Read:
A Syrian nuclear plan has a kind of logic

Updated The Israel Factor:
A new phase: Clinton is now second

Updated The Iran Time Saver:
Features, opinion, interviews, studies