According to FCN’s report in September 1980, when the Islamic Revolution had not yet reached two years of age, few imagined that an 8-year war with enormous financial and human costs for Iran would unfold. Yet, it did.
In February 2003, when Iran, as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, announced the preparation of nuclear fuel by Iranian experts for Iran’s nuclear power plants, few suspected that a 12-year-long crisis, longer than the war itself, awaited Iran. Yet, it did.
Ayatollah Khomeini, in his insistence on war until Saddam’s destruction, had said that “peace between Islam and disbelief has no meaning.” His successor, Ayatollah Khamenei, also considered insistence on the nuclear file a “legitimate right.”
However, the consequence of these two insistences was that Ayatollah Khomeini accepted UN Resolution 598 and called it drinking a cup of poison, while Ayatollah Khamenei accepted negotiations with America in nuclear talks and termed it heroic compromise!
What is important is that at the onset of these two costly crises for Iran, few in the Islamic Republic’s leadership believed that the process that had begun would, in the first case, lead to a devastating war and, in the second case, to a harmful and endless project that ultimately required concessions in both instances.
Circumventing Hezbollah’s Sanctions; The Ball in Iran’s Court
Hezbollah, in its own home Lebanon, and at America’s behest, has been placed under suffocating banking sanctions. Today, perhaps few would believe that this matter could impose crushing sanctions on Iran.
The story goes as follows: The U.S. Congress passed legislation on December 15, 2015, requiring Lebanese banks, including the country’s central bank, to impose banking sanctions on all institutions, organizations, and key figures of the party, including Hassan Nasrallah. America itself prepared the lengthy list of these institutions and individuals and notified Lebanon’s banks. As a result, Lebanon’s central bank and Lebanese banks, on July 10, 2016, implemented all American conditions for imposing banking sanctions against 100 institutions, organizations, and individuals of Hezbollah.
Hezbollah’s initial reaction was to deny that sanctions would affect the party. In a statement issued by the party, it stated: “This new [American] attack through the banking sector against Hezbollah will fail.”
However, since that day, the main question for observers has been: what would be Hezbollah’s mechanism for dealing with severe American banking sanctions, particularly in Lebanon, the birthplace of Hezbollah?
Hassan Nasrallah answered this important question in his speech on June 25. While smiling, he said: “As long as Iran has money, we have money too… We do not have any financial institution that can be broken by banking sanctions. Let the whole world know… [in resistance against Israel] all projects, all costs, all food and supplies, all weapons and missiles are provided by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Just as the missiles with which I threaten Israel come from Iran, all our assets come from Iran.”
Analysis of the content of Nasrallah’s remarks is nothing less than his openly and transparently, in a way that leaves no doubt for anyone, lifting the veil on the mechanism for circumventing his party’s sanctions. He said that Hezbollah’s financial sources are not actually in Lebanon such that banking sanctions on Lebanese banks would cut off Hezbollah’s financial resources. He continued his clarity to the point of saying: “As long as Iran has money, we have money too.”
Whether Nasrallah categorically denies the impact of sanctions is highly questionable. However, with Nasrallah lifting the veil on the mechanism of circumventing sanctions, the important question is: what are the implications of Nasrallah’s remarks for Iran?
Three Other Sanctions on Iran
Recall that America’s and its allies’ explicit position was that following the JCPOA, only Iran’s nuclear sanctions would be lifted. Barack Obama said that negotiations leading to the JCPOA would not include other sanctions. These three other sanctions are:
Sanctions based on missile activities
Sanctions based on human rights violations
Sanctions based on support for terrorism
In this author’s view, the rings of Iran sanctions of the third type (support for terrorism) are being completed one by one. Hezbollah Lebanon is now not only designated by the United States, Australia, Canada, and the European Union as a terrorist organization, but even further by the Arab League, and most importantly by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, as a terrorist organization. This means all Islamic countries (except Tehran and Damascus), even Iraq and Lebanon (Hezbollah’s birthplace), have designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. (See the article: Islamic Republic and Diplomatic Failure in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation)
In such a scope of countries in the world, including Arab, Muslim, and Western countries, what is the consequence of Nasrallah’s corrupt positions for Iran?
Nasrallah’s Positions; Laying Groundwork for ‘Re-Imposing’ Sanctions on Iran
If the analysis of Nasrallah’s remarks is nothing less than him, with a clear conscience, knowing his revenue sources not in Lebanon but in Iran, and considering that Iran is not only suspected by Western countries but even by an institution like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation of supporting terrorist networks, is the corrupt consequence of Hassan Nasrallah’s positions anything other than expecting that the arrows of sanctions targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon would be directed at Iran? Has Hassan Nasrallah not completed the puzzle of “re-imposing” sanctions on Iran with the utmost clarity and transparency, but this time with the pretext of supporting terrorism?
This question is particularly important because we should know that the Financial Action Task Force (an institution founded by the seven major economic powers with the goal of combating money laundering) in its recent report recommended to Iran to “fully address deficiencies related to combating money laundering and in particular countering the financing of terrorism.”
On the other hand, the impact of paralyzing sanctions (a term Hillary Clinton used) based on nuclear activities is no longer hidden from anyone, even Ayatollah Khamenei. Like today’s Nasrallah, previously Ayatollah Khamenei repeatedly denied the impact of sanctions. But ultimately he was forced to compromise; what he termed a heroic compromise!
By this calculation, first, one can doubt Nasrallah’s denial of sanctions having no effect on Hezbollah, and second, one can believe that Nasrallah’s remarks have no other meaning than providing the address for re-imposing sanctions on Iran.
Now, if Iran’s sanctions based on support for terrorism did not materialize during Obama’s administration, within a few months of Trump’s or Hillary Clinton’s entry to the White House, either of whom holds hardline positions against Iran, they would impose re-sanctions on Iran, the exact address of which Hassan Nasrallah has provided.
—————————-
These notes represent the views of their authors and are not a reflection of FCN’s editorial stance.
