Snapback: The Sanctions’ Return

... and a meditation on the killing of journalists in Gaza

Tomorrow Iran begins once more to pay the price. Britain, France, and Germany will formally trigger the “snapback” mechanism, restoring the broad UN sanctions on Iran that were lifted a decade ago in the nuclear deal (which Trump mindlessly walked away from in 2018). Designed as a safeguard against cheating, snapback allows any major signatory to force the old sanctions back into place without the risk of a Russian or Chinese veto. The procedure takes thirty days to run, which is why the Europeans are moving now: if they waited until after October 18, the mechanism would expire forever. Complicated.

On paper, this is the hammer blow meant to keep Tehran in line. Iran’s economy is still built on hydrocarbons. Oil and condensates provide the majority of export earnings and about a third of government revenue. Last year, OPEC figures put crude exports at nearly $47 billion, much of it shipped at a discount to China through a shadow fleet of aging tankers. That revenue is the lifeblood of a $430 billion economy (which is meager for a country of about 92 million people).

If the snapback is enforced rigorously, the lifeline could be cut in half. Revenues would tumble by about $20 billion or more in the first year, equal to five percent of GDP. If China itself complied and stopped buying altogether, the collapse would be catastrophic, basically a wipeout. Of course, it won’t. This is China.

Dear AQL readers: There is a battle for the soul of journalism. Corporate and soulless or authentic and independent? We cannot prevail without your support.

Even in a likelier scenario Iran’s deficit will widen and the government would be forced to print money or delay payments, feeding inflation that has already gutted purchasing power. The rial, which has collapsed past a million to the dollar, would fall further as dollar inflows dried up. Import costs would rise, reserves would weaken, confidence would evaporate. Investment in the energy sector would stall as finance and equipment imports became more difficult, eroding capacity over time even if output did not collapse immediately.

With any luck the Iranian people would find a way to finally be rid of the criminal regime that hijacked their revolution 45 years ago in a faked referendum that established the “Islamic Republic,” one of the most unfortunate political developments of the post-World War II era, which has undermined and disrupted the entire Middle East and disgraced what will one day again be a great country.

The “snapback” of sanctions is the minimum that should happen.

After the 12-day war in June with Israel exposed Iran’s proxies and left its air defenses humiliated, what should have followed was an ultimatum. The United States and its allies should have insisted that Tehran abandon enrichment beyond agreed levels, shut down its missile program, and end the support for the web of militias that have undermined Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and more. The regime was on the back foot, and that was the moment to strike. Instead, Washington declared victory and moved on. In his hubristic insistence — contradicted by US intelligence — that the Iranian nuclear program had been “obliterated,” Trump seriously dropped the ball.

Sanctions are potentially useful, but the larger issue is one of legitimacy. What other state is permitted to arm militias that fire rockets into its neighbors, or dispatch agents abroad to murder Jews on foreign soil (as was discovered this week in Australia, prompting the expulsion of the Iranian ambassador)? In the 1990s, Iran-backed Hezbollah’s role in the Argentina bombings clarified its nature for the world. This should be similarly clarifying. The United Nations ought to treat the Iranian regime as a pariah, stripping recognition from it for an alternative government in waiting.

The time to give the foremost state sponsor of terrorism the benefit of the doubt has passed and the moment to finally hold it accountable is now.

Reports indicate that the regime is using the latest negotiations between the UK, France, and Germany (E3) to ensure more delays, more confusion, and, ultimately, to buy more time to achieve its nuclear ambitions. Despite another undeserved opportunity to come clean, the regime in Iran has refused to abandon nuclear enrichment and continues to block inspections. More disturbing are the whispers of the Islamic Republic seeking to bypass the international community and explore the procurement of nuclear weapons from foreign suppliers.

“The Islamic Republic is, once again, signaling to the world that terrorism is in its DNA and it is simply incompatible with the free world,” said Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former Shah of Iran, deposed in 1979, in a statement. “Expecting the regime to change its malign behavior is not only a waste of time, but presents an unacceptable threat to … all peace-loving nations.”

The son is an improvement upon the problematic father, whose incompetence and misrule, after being installed in the 1950s by fuzzy-brained American meddlers, sparked the upheaval that bedevils the world to this day.

Israel, Gaza, and the Killing of Journalists

The Israeli shelling of Gaza’s Nasser Hospital this week, killing five journalists along with civilians and health workers, has reopened a terrible debate. With nearly two hundred journalists killed since the war began, Gaza has become the deadliest conflict for the press in recorded history, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. This is personal not just to other journalists: These victims risked their lives to bring us the story, many of them appearing on our screens in our safe havens far away.

Critics say Israel has embarked on a systematic campaign to silence witnesses – and, very meaningfully, this includes the CPJ, which is generally serious and sober. In its report this month, the organization wrote that “Israel is engaging in the deadliest and most deliberate effort to kill and silence journalists that CPJ has ever documented.” This and other statements leave little doubt about the prevailing perception: that Israel is at war not just with Hamas, but with the truth. The concerns are not unwarranted and the grief is real.

And yet — having lived these issues for decades, I must insist that the reality is more complicated, and perhaps more tragic, than the caricature. And I have had some experience with journalist deaths in the region, not only in Gaza but also in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

In August 2014, during the late stages of another Gaza war, when I was Associated Press bureau chief in Israel and regional editor for the Middle East, a terrible explosion in northern Gaza killed our Italian video journalist Simone Camilli, along with translator Ali Shehda Abu Afash and four members of a Hamas bomb squad who were unwisely fiddling with unexploded Israeli ordnance. I remember receiving Simone’s family at the airport, trying to console them; realistically, the question was whether we had irresponsibly encouraged him to be at the scene.

Our focus shifted to another colleague who survived, but barely: AP photographer Hatem Moussa, gravely injured in the blast. Erez, the crossing from Gaza into Israel, was closed because of the war. I found myself on the phone with an Israeli general, pleading for it to be opened so we could evacuate Hatem. To their credit, permission was granted. A UN ambulance took him to the crossing, where he was transferred to an Israeli one and brought to Hadassah Hospital. There was a medical crisis along the way and for a time we feared for his life. That evening I visited him in intensive care. The director told me he might lose his leg. He did.

In the months that followed, AP staff and I accompanied Hatem through a grueling convalescence. We brought his family across the border whenever possible. To this day we remain friends. His left leg is gone below the knee, but his dignity remains intact.

I recall another tragedy: the 2003 death of cameraman Nazeh Darwazeh in Nablus. He was hit in the head by a ricochet fired by an Israeli soldier who had left an Israeli armored vehicle that got stuck in the narrow alleyway and was besieged by a mob. I went to visit his family to console them. His young son clung to his father’s picture on the wall, refusing to leave its side. The mother blamed Ariel Sharon. Everyone understood, though, that it had been an accident. That encounter will stay with me forever.

But Israel, unlike Vladimir Putin’s Russia, does not assassinate journalists for being journalists. Its position, like the wider story, is more nuanced complex – but still not necessarily defensible. From years of conversations with soldiers and commanders, from my own experience, and from talking to soldiers active in the current war, I can sketch four scenarios that account for most of these deaths.

The first is partial indifference: an operation is underway, a location is targeted, and the presence of media nearby does not slow the trigger finger as much as it should. The second is a rogue soldier who disregards rules or lets anger dictate action. The third is the tragic misidentification of a journalist believed to be a Hamas operative, whether because Hamas embeds itself among civilians or because the soldier has been led to believe the camera is a disguise.

The fourth, and perhaps most troubling, is when Israel acknowledges someone’s journalistic role but decides it is irrelevant if that person is deemed targetable for other reasons. This seems to have been the case with Anas al-Sharif, the Al Jazeera journalist killed after months of threats and surveillance. The “proof” Israel provided of Hamas ties was threadbare, referred to the past, and failed to convince. Officials seemed unaware — or perhaps indifferent — to how terrible a look it is to openly target a reporter, especially one so prominent on air.

Anas was lately active in reporting on Gaza’s hunger, a message that Hamas certainly wished to amplify (and perhaps exaggerate) but that was also plainly real, as independent groups corroborated – and which Israel has foolishly dismissed as purely Hamas propaganda. In this context explanations ring hollow. In an oped in The Guardian, CPJ chief Jodie Ginsberg wrote that “Israel believes it can get away with murder,” noted Anas was threatened by Israel, and suggested the real motive was his reporting: “The laws of war are clear: journalists are civilians. To target them deliberately in war is to commit a war crime.”

In theory, all four scenarios are condemnable. But they differ from the notion of a deliberate, systematic policy of exterminating journalists—the kind of policy one would associate with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Israel, for all its flaws, is still a state with rule of law. The prime minister is on trial, protest is free, and the military is not immune from scrutiny. That does not absolve Israel of responsibility nor soften the horror of the numbers – but it should temper the conclusion.

As I told CBC this week: “I don’t think Israel targets journalists in order to prevent the truth from getting out. If for nothing else, they’re simply not that stupid. What has developed, however, is a certain callousness — a light trigger finger born of despair after so much time fighting Hamas, which refuses to surrender.”

I am a harsh critic of Benjamin Netanyahu and of his conduct of this war. Were it up to me, the war would end tomorrow in a full hostage deal, and other means would be found to remove what remains of Hamas. Readers of this column know I believe Netanyahu is guided less by strategy than by his own political survival, which leads him toward cynical and destructive decisions. In this sense he edges closer to the caricature his critics paint.

But Israel as a whole is not a cartoon villain. It is a country confronting an enemy that hides among civilians, glorifies martyrdom, and educates its youth for jihad. Hamas has long sought to turn the suffering of Palestinians into a weapon. That does not absolve Israel of its choices, but it explains some of the context. To ignore this reality is to misunderstand the war.

There is another layer of complexity. International journalists have not been able to enter Gaza independently since the war began. The reporting we see is from Palestinians on the ground, many working for international media at immense risk. Some are extraordinary professionals. I know this because I hired and worked with them.

But Gaza is not a free environment. Hamas controls public space and imposes its will. Journalists cannot always speak freely. Some may feel pressure to shade their coverage. Israel claims that some are propagandists or even operatives. I do not dismiss this out of hand, though I know it is sometimes a self-serving claim.

The situation is messy and the truth elusive. My efforts to bring this across on TV this week caused a minor eruption in social media erupted. I was accused of being a “genocide apologist.” One bloviator on X sneered: “I’m so glad this vomit went on CBC, I felt like no one before then understood my hate for this person and his journalism.”

Such is the cost of refusing to join the mob demonizing Israel. Netanyahu has put Israel in such a position with his immoral decision to turn this tragedy into Israel’s longest war, almost certainly because of his vile political calculations. But despite that, reality is murkier than Israel haters comprehend, as tragedy often is.