Why has the United States used trade sanctions against Iran? The 1990's have brought with them a new world order. The Cold War is over, and the United States is the sole superpower. Along with this power comes a great responsibility placed on the leaders of this great world authority. The United States has taken it upon themselves since the administration of Woodrow Wilson to bestow its values upon the various states throughout the world. During a speech in Detroit on October 22, 1996, President Clinton stated, "Through our size, our strength, our relative wealth, and also through the power of our example, America has a unique ability to shape a world of greater security and prosperity, peace and freedom."(20) Now that the Soviet Union and the fifty year communist threat are gone, the United States is faced with a new threat. This is the threat of rogue actors. Rogue states are those which are considered to roam free without adherence to international norms. These states bring with them a constant threat of terrorism which the United States has tried to diminish. Iran is now number one on the list of "the world's most active supporter(s) of terrorism"(3). In order to cope with the growing Iranian terrorist threat the United States Congress passed the Iran Foreign Oil Sanctions act in December of 1995 and a later updated version called the Iran, Libya Sanctions Act. In order for one to understand what goes into making such a harsh government decision, we must delve into the theories of decision making and international relations. These include that of rationality, search, persuasion, strategy, unitary actor and bureaucratic politics. Decision making involves two steps: reduction in uncertainty and simplification of complexity. In order for decision makers to do this properly, they must act rationally. A rational decision is one which involves value maximization. A theoretically rational decision is one which takes into account all available options. All these options are then weighed, and the outcome is the choice of the most optimal solution to achieving one's goal. It is important to understand that it is virtually impossible to act totally rational in making most decisions in international affairs. There are many different factors that enter the spectrum which interfere with rationality. Most important in this case is bureaucratic politics and the unitary actor theories. However, before discussing the implications of these two theories we must look into bargaining theory. One place in international relations where rational decision making is essential is at the bargaining table. Bargaining theory involves three key elements: search, persuasion, and strategy. To search is to discover or invent new alternatives that are jointly consistent with both sides. Essentially the two sides use search to try and outline alternative solutions to what comes next, persuasion. Persuasion is the act of changing the appraisal of values one's opponent assigns to their outcomes. The key to persuasion is to show the opponent that you have no control over the outcome of the situation. An important element to persuasion is that in order to persuade your opponent you must be informed of their values. Once you know what your opponent values then you can make them aware of a new cost-benefit analysis which they did not see. Persuasion is an excellent option at the bargaining table because there is no cost. As well, persuasion is almost always used before strategy, because once strategy is used, it is hard to go back to persuasion. One main reason for this is because in strategy one has control over the outcomes. Strategy is the act of using rewards or punishments in order to get an actor to either change their behavior or maintain a certain acceptable behavior. The key to strategy is to limit your own options in such a way that your opponent will perceive your threats as real. A perfect usage of strategy would be for your opponent to actually assume you are using persuasion. In other words, if your opponent believes that you would have no choice but to go through with a certain punishment, then strategy is more likely to succeed. The two main strategic options are deterrence and coercion. Deterrence is an action taken to force a party to maintain a certain behavior or prevent them from changing their behavior. Coercion is an action taken to force a party to change an unacceptable behavior or force them to undo an unacceptable action already taken. The United States has used a policy of deterrence and coercive diplomacy since the 1940's. This began with the nuclear arms race where the US. sought to persuade the Soviet Union from nuclear proliferation. When that failed they moved to strategy to deter the Soviet's from using these weapons. The United States has taken the same attitude toward the rogue states in the 1990's. They have used deterrence and coercive diplomacy to try and keep the rogue states in line with international norms. "The United States and its allies continue to focus on raising the costs for governments that support, tolerate, and engage in international terrorism" (3). The act of raising these costs has been the job of the decision makers within the United States foreign affairs bureaucracy. This paper is focusing on the United State's trade sanctions towards Iran. Before we go any further one may be asking, why do governments use trade sanctions rather than other forms of strategy. Joe Cobb in a recent article published in Economic and Political Commentary, claims, "Politicians who need to show "leadership" but don't want to get too rough, reach for economic tools. These are so much cheaper than military yet more forceful than diplomatic protests. Every U.S. President since Wilson has invoked trade sanctions".(14) PART TWO-- EVIDENCE "Iran continued in 1995 to be the world's most active supporter of international terrorism. Although Tehran tried to project a moderate image in the West, it continued to assassinate dissidents abroad and maintained its support and financing of groups that pose a threat to US citizens" (3). Iran's support of international terrorist groups can not be questioned. Numerous sources point to this fact. "As recently noted by Secretary of State Christopher, Iran is the world's leading sponsor of international terrorism. As the preeminent sponsor of extremist Islamic and Palestinian groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, the Iranians provide them with funds, weapons, and training" (Notes from AIPAC, get web site). Even Palestinian leader Yaser Arafat has pinned terrorist actions on Iran. During the string of suicide bombings during the spring of 1996 in Israel, Arafat was quoted as saying, "I have the right to ask, 'Who ordered the latest violent attacks?' Iran, Iran ordered them." (7). The point here is that the United State's government is undoubtedly aiming at Iran to answer the world's question of where do these terrorist groups stem. In 1995 the United State's Congress passed the Iran Foreign Oil Sanctions Act. The purpose of this act was to cut off the Iranian oil income using foreign trade sanctions. As said by Undersecretary of State Peter Tarnoff on 10/11/95, "a straight line links Iran's oil income and its ability to sponsor terrorism [and] build weapons of mass destruction."(10) As of 1995, more than ninety percent of Iran's hard currency came from the petroleum sector. The Iran Foreign Oil Sanctions Act imposed economic sanctions on foreign companies who did business with Iran's petroleum sector.(10) As a follow up to the Iran Foreign Oil Sanctions Act, Congress passed the Iran- Libya Sanctions Act in the spring of 1996 and President Clinton signed the bill on August 5th. "The Iran-Libya Act, by virtue of its extra territorial scope, extends the existing sanctions against Iran and Libya to companies and individuals unconnected with the U.S. regardless of their nationality, investors in the petroleum sector in Iran or Libya, and exporters of items that enhance Libya's military or aviation capabilities or its ability to develop petroleum resources are the targets of this new legislation".(12) This piece of legislation had wide support on the house floor as well as the Pentagon and White House. On June 18, Congressman David Boehner of Ohio (R) said, "The bill is necessary to erode Iran's and Libya's ability to finance international terrorism in chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons development programs. By targeting these countries' primary money making industries, this legislation strikes at the heart of Iran's and Libya's efforts to undermine the Middle East peace process and to terrorize its peaceful neighbors".(13) As Congressman Cardin from Maryland reiterated during the same debate, ". . . Make no mistake about it, the investments that go into Iranian infrastructure for oil finance the money that are being used for terrorist activities. The President, the Secretary of State, (and) the director of the CIA have all identified Iran as the world's leading sponsor of international terrorism. This bill is directly aimed at dealing with that fact, it is indisputable, to dry up the dollars supporting international terrorist activities. That is in the security interests of the United States."(ibid.) One of the most imminent pressures on the United State's foreign policy decision makers is the Israel lobby. More specifically the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC over the years has used both grass roots mobilization as well as its powerful financial funds to influence American foreign policy towards the middle east. For example, in light of the congressional debate on the Iran Foreign Oil Sanctions Act, AIPAC sent out letters to its members saying "calls must be made immediately as action on the counter - terrorism legislation is currently scheduled to begin the week of March 11, 1996. . . . members are asked to call their members of the House of Representatives immediately and urge them to pass the Counter - Terrorism Act as well as the Iran Foreign Oil Sanctions act"(4). As you can see, AIPAC strongly supports most anti-Iranian legislation and makes a strong attempt to affect the congressional votes. The White House as well has shown support for the Iran - Libya Sanctions Act. According to a fact sheet released by the Office of the Press Secretary of the White House on August 5, 1996, "President Clinton has led the fight against terrorism and will continue to take measures to further pressure and punish states that support it".(11) Not only does the White House recognize the Iranian terrorist threat, but they hold that there is a nuclear threat as well. In speech by President Clinton's Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs, Samuel Berger, on June 18, 1996, he outlined the threat. "The threat of nuclear annihilation has receded, but the danger that weapons of mass destruction -- biological, chemical and nuclear -- will spread into unreliable hands has grown as the technology becomes more widely accessible. . . and can in some cases be called up on the Internet".(17) The CIA sees the Iranian nuclear threat to be very real. Intelligence estimates report that Iran will be nuclear weapon capable in a five to ten year time frame.(7) The intelligence reports are what the politicians are quoting when discussing the nuclear threat. According to a recent study done by Greg J. Gerardi and Maryam Aharinejad, "U.S. concern about the transfer of any nuclear technology to Iran is based on the belief that Iran has a clandestine nuclear weapon development program".(ibid) PART THREE- CONCLUSIONS Upon reading Professor Tanter's Iran Chapter of Rogue Regimes, I must agree with his conclusions. As Professor Tanter stated, "There is a convergence of bureaucratic and domestic politics with idealism and perceived interests. As a result, alliance politics have little influence on American policy regarding terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. In this respect, threat perceptions of the Pentagon, the pro-Israel community, counter - terrorist ideals and principles against proliferation prevail."(21) In answering the question, "Why has the United States used trade sanctions against Iran?" The above quote pretty much sums it up. The Pentagon has continually put Iran in a different class on top of the rest of terrorist supporters. Their lists and studies show they publicly perceive international state sponsored terrorism as well as rogue state control of weapons of mass destruction to be a threat to the security of the United States. It seems that the legislature in deciding how to perceive the threat deferred their intelligence to the Pentagon. The Pro-Israel community also played a very important role in controlling the fate of these trade sanctions. AIPAC has, over the years, shown extreme diligence in pushing the United States government to hold the Middle Eastern Arab governments accountable for their actions. Another very important point made above is the fact that throughout the speeches and writings made by government officials, you will see a trend of an anti- terrorist/proliferation ideal. Terrorism is unacceptable in the framework of American foreign policy, and all decision makers seem to defer to that fact. Finally it must be stated the purpose of these US sanctions in the context of bargaining theory was to coerce the Iranians into changing there stance on terrorism. Making this a multi-lateral action was just a means of increasing the pressure. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Scope of the Commission's Inquiry: An executive summary of the role of the US foreign intelligence in the post cold war. Available: WWW URL: http://nsi.org/Library/Intel/workplan.html 2.Terrrorist Profiles from "The Profiles of Global Terrorism", an annual report published by the US State Department. Available: WWW URL: http://nsi.org/Library/Terrorism/profterr.txt 3."Patterns of Global Terrorism", US State Department, 1995. Available: WWW URL: http://www.usis.usemb.se/terror/TERSST.HTM 4.Price, Reva. "Middle East Peace Issues". Political Action Network, April 19, 1996. Available: WWW URL: 5. Congressional Report. April 18, 1996 7. "Arafat Pins Blame on Iran and some Arab States." No Author offered. Reuters. Available: WWW URL: http://www4.nando.net/newsroom/nt/316pins.html 9. Gerardi, Greg J. and Maryam Aharinejad. "An Assessment of Iran's Nuclear Facilities". The Nonporliferation Review, Sping - Summer 1995, Voume 2- No. 3. 10. "Iran Foreign Oil Sanctions Act, Questions and Answers". Published by AIPAC. June 5, 1996. Available: WWW URL: http://www.aipac.org/iran/iranqa.htm 11. "Fact Sheet: Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996". Published by the Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, Washington DC. August 5, 1996. Available: WWW URL: 12. "U.S. Secondary Sanctions Target Companies Doing Business with Iran and Libya". August 1996. Available: WWW URL: http://www.mccarthy.ca/mt-ussan.htm 13. "Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996". US House of Representatives. June 18, 1996. Available: WWW URL: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1996_cr/h960618i.ht 14. Cobb, Joe. "Trade Sanctions: Seizing Your Sword by Its Blade". Economic and Political Commentary. Available: WWW URL: http://www2.paltech.com/joecobb/sanction.htm 15. Tanter, Raymond. "Excerpt From Iran Chapter of Rogue Regimes". Available WWW URL: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rtanter/F96PS472Notes/472law5.txt 16. Lake, Anthony. Assistant to the President For National Security Affairs Commencement Address National Defense University, June 12, 1996. Released by Office of the Press Secretary, the White House. Available WWW URL: http://docs.whitehouse.gov/white-house-publications/1996/06/1996-06-12-anthony-lake- to-national-defense-u-commencement.text 17.Berger, Samuer. Remarks by Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Wilson Center, Washington D.C.. June 18, 1996. 18. "Fact Sheet: The Iran And Libya Sanctions Act of 1996" Released by Office of the Press Secretary, The White House. August 5, 1996. Available: WWW URL: http://docs.whitehouse.gov/white-house-publications/1996/08/1996-08-06-iran-and-libya- sanctions-act-of-1996-fact-sheet.text 19. Clinton, William Jefferson. "Text of a letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate". Released by the Office of the Press Secretary, The White House. November, 14, 1996. Available: WWW URL: http://docs.whitehouse.gov/white-house-publications/1996/11/1996-11-14-president-letter- on-national-emergency-wrt-iran.text 20. Clinton, William Jefferson. "Presidential speech on foreign policy" Detroit, MI. October 22, 1996. Released by Office of the Press Secretary, The White House. Available: WWW URL: http://docs.whitehouse.gov/white-house- publications/1996/10/1996-10-22-president-speech-on-foreign-policy-in-detroit-mi.text