- ‹ previous
- 97 of 2801
- next ›
Sanctioning Iran
Dave Schuler thinks it's time to crack down on Iran:
We should implement consequences for Iran as stern as we can make them, non-violent in nature but punitive in quality. We should muster all of the permanent members of the Security Council to participate in these measures but be prepared to proceed without them. A peaceful, prosperous, and just Iran is in Russian and Chinese interests
as it is in ours and, if they elect to support tyranny in Iran, Russia and China should be made aware that this latest tyranny in Iran will eventually end and the Iranian people will know who supported the tyrants and who opposed them.
Setting aside the question of whether this is wise or not, I don't quite get what the sanctions crowd is after. We have no diplomatic relations with Iran. Trade is embargoed and imports are prohibited. (Except for Persian rugs!) We sanction foreign companies who do business with Iran. Investment in Iran is prohibited. The Treasury Departments forbids banks from processing even indirect financial transactions with Iran. There's a little more we could do, but not much.
As for Russia and China, sure, the current U.S. sanctions would have a lot more bite if the rest of the world joined in. But what leverage do we have to make that happen? Hell, even Europe isn't on board with our sanctions regime, let alone China and Russia. There's just not a lot we can do on that front.
Is there anything more of any real consequence that the U.S. could do unilaterally? Is there anything serious the U.S. could do to get the rest of the world to support us? I don't really see it. What am I missing here?
Talk Tough!
Badmouth that ditherer Obama, be real, real Manly!
It is the Amuricun Way!
Missing ?
What you're missing Kevin is the sound of your own credulity when it comes to the so-called menace of Iran. Most of this shit is being driven from Tel Aviv, and if you opened your eyes even a little, you might see that there are two powers in the Middle East, one of which hasn't invaded anyone and has in fact signed on to and has obeyed the letter of the law when it comes to the NPT, while the other has invaded all over the place, has nuclear weapons up the ying yang, and has never signed on to or obeyed the letter of any law. Don't you detect even a little historical irony here ? God damn, it gets a little frustrating listening to this crap about the great menace of Iran every day.
The American government
The American government would want to dominate the Middle East even if Israel did not exist. The CIA overthrew the Iranian democracy and installed the Shah in 1953 to ensure American dominance of the oil trade, not to protect Israel. If Iran acquires a nuclear deterrent, American dominance will be greatly reduced. That is the issue.
You are missing the
You are missing the emotional appeal of tightening sanctions on the bad guys.
"Dave Schuler thinks it's
"Dave Schuler thinks it's time to crack down on Iran"
Sorry, Drum, that train has left the station. Iran looks at Obama and laughs. Tehran knows full well Obama can't - and won't - do anything to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Obama's liberal supporters have maintained attacking Iran is verboten. Obama has stressed diplomacy - talking - will solve the crisis.
Sure enough, every time Obama strikes a deal - and the MSM and progressives hail said deal as smart, adult diplomacy - Iran backtracks.
What does Obama do?
Nothing.
As long as Obama dithers and does nothing, Iran will have no pressure to do anything except work towards a nuclear bomb. And Iran knows Obama doesn't have the stones to do anything except call for more smart, adult diplomacy.
What deal?
What are you talking about? Obama hasn't struck any deals with Iran for them to backtrack on.
Obama is doing the right thing already. He's negotiating, not threatening to bomb anyone, working with other countries. Though Bush never understood this, there's something to be said for being respected.
And maybe we n
http://www.ravensblog.net
"What are you talking about?
"What are you talking about? Obama hasn't struck any deals with Iran for them to backtrack on."
Where have you been? A couple of weeks ago, the State Dept. hailed the Russia-France-Iran deal that would send Iran's uranium to Russia for partial enrichment. Russia would send the uranium to France, who would fashion it to be used in Iranian reactors (and not in nuclear weapons).
Iran, of course, hedged, dithered, then pretty much backed out.
"Is there anything more of any real consequence that the U.S. could do unilaterally?"
Yes. Bomb their facilities like Israel bombed Osirak, which set back Iraq's nuclear program by decades. But that's not smart, adult diplomacy, so that's off the progressive table.
"Is there anything serious the U.S. could do to get the rest of the world to support us? I don't really see it."
Of course you don't see it. The world is used to the U.S. solving the world's problems. World War II, Cold War, Bosnia, Iraq I, etc. We took the lead and solved the problem and for the most part, cleaned up the mess.
But don't worry. If we don't do something about Iran, Israel will. Progressives will scream, but millions of lives will be saved from the Mad Mullahs launching nuclear weapons on a state that they don't believe has a right to exist.
And you won't see any of the Arab states - especially Saudi Arabia - complain. They fear the Iranians almost as much as the Israelis.
A couple of weeks ago, the
It doesn't make sense to take about Iran backtracking on a deal Iran never agreed to.
Possible consequences of such idiocy include Iranians rallying around a regime that would now be much more motivated to arm themselves much faster (possibly with help from China in exchange for oil), as well as destabilization in Iraq, AfPak and other governments in the area.
It's not like Iran's nuclear program started just this year. If there was anything hawks could do about Iran that actually made any sense, it would have been done last year.
Huh ?
The simple-mindedness of your analysis is breathtaking. You believe that bombing the Iranian facilities will lead to some sort of resolution, and that there will be no consequences for others in the area ? You believe that the Iranians, who you claim are led by a bunch of mad mullahs, will sit by and do nothing ? Have you considered the economic consequences if the Iranians decide to seriously disrupt oil supplies from the region for an extended period ? What happens if they decide to start launching missiles at Tel Aviv, and the Israelis, who do have nuclear weapons, decide to retaliate with said nuclear weapons ? And if the Israelis attack Iran, do you think that Hezbollah won't take the opportunity to fire a few thousand rockets into Israel ? I believe that simple-minded thinking like this has been responsible for most of the major fuckups we've seen since 2001.
It's not like Iran's nuclear
It's not like Iran's nuclear program started under Obama. If the hawks could have done anything about Iran, if further unilateral sanctions or bombing made any sense at all, it would have been done last year.
Rattle sabres
tagged as:- solution
There are a number of things that could be done short of John McCain's "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb" iran: Military exercises on both the Iraq/Afghanistan borders, naval provocation in the disputed territorial waters, stepped up covert aid to the dissidents.
Besides, it may be time for Obama to busy the minds of Congress with foreign wars--test the patriotism of the GOP and blue doggish Dems.
All of this may be extremely ill-advised, but it should be considered.
After all, you did ask what more could be done.
Military exercises on both
At the very least you have to decide whether you want to threaten Iran from the outside or the inside. Military provocations would be the deathknell of the Iranian dissident movement.
Way, way above my pay grade
Frankly, I don't know why the hell Obama wanted to be president.
Doing nothing is certainly an attractive option, and, for all we know, may be working. I heard on the radio that some of the original 1979 hostage-takers are now on the anti-government side. The annual USA flag-burning celebration in front of our embassy went on as planned, but many of the demonstrations elsewhere were anti-government, not anti-U.S.
On the other hand, the dissidents may be close to taking power, and a few smuggled weapons might do the trick. Maybe the tea party boys could donate some of their AKs and .50 sniper rifles. Better still, they could join the marines, let some actual tough guys go see their wives, kick at Oceanside for a while.
Force and threat of force are necessary for diplomacy to work. I just don't know if this is one of those times, and, respectfully, neither do you.
If I were Obama, I think I'd abdicate. Go watch the turtles in the Galapagos Islands and let the Senate, NATO, and the Washington Post go f**k themselves.
peaceful, prosperous, and just
Iran is infinitely more peaceful than the US.
Iran's prosperity has already been greatly impaired by economic sanctions imposed by the US.
Justice in Iran is probably no more corrupt than in the US, although no Italian court has convicted any Iranians of kidnapping in order to torture suspects.
Dave Schuler, on the other hand, may be responsible for the recent terrorist attacks in Iran, as all Americans may be. He probably advocates for extrajudicial assassinations and the destruction of mosques filled with worshipers. These terrorist acts make it difficult for Iran to administer justice, foster prosperity and have peaceful interactions with its adversaries, which is exactly what Mr. Schuler desires.
Is there anything more of any real consequence that the U.S. cou
tagged as:- solution
Hell yes. Leave the tyrannical, bug&*^$ regime ALONE so it crumbles under its own hideous dead weight. Opposing it merely strengthens it by allowing them to play the nationalism card. Things are very, very dickey right now, but if we just play our cards right and *do Nothing*, we (and the Iranian people) may get very lucky.
Sanctions = War
Iranian people support their nuclear program and deeply resent foreign powers shoving them around.
THe supporters of sanctions know that sanctions are ineffective and will only backfire.They only support sanctions because they see it as an incremental step towards their REAL goal: preventing a US-Iran rapprochement that Israel opposes, and eventually leading to a military confrontation.
Israel pushing us into another disaster
Israel will fight Iran to the last US Marine. They've always wanted to force the US into a war on Iran for their own good. That's no secret.
"Diplomacy" = WAR
Agreed. Similarly, the word "Diplomacy" has been used as a euphemism for sanctions. People claim to be in favor of "diplomacy" with Iran, meaning they want sanctions imposed, knowing full well that the result of sanctions wil inevitably be war -- but since they can't come right out and say "I prefer war" they use the euphemism.
We need a fundamental reevaluation of our approach not just to Iran but the entire Non-Proliferation Treat (which we have totally ignored and violated) as well as our "ally" ISrael. Does Obama have what it takes? Not with Clinton running the show.
US and ISrael want to bomb Iran, regardless.
War has always been on the agenda. The Iranians made several very far-reaching nuclear compromise offers under Bush that would have ended any theoretical chance of them making nukes -- but Bush simply ignored the offers. Why? Because the US needs to keep the "Iran is making nukes" threat alive as a justification for war. No amount of compromise by Iran will ever suffice.
This is what IAEA head ELbaradei said himself:
"I have seen the Iranians ready to accept putting a cap on their enrichment [program] in terms of tens of centrifuges, and then in terms of hundreds of centrifuges. But nobody even tried to engage them on these offers. Now Iran has 5,000 centrifuges. The line was, "Iran will buckle under pressure." But this issue has become so ingrained in the Iranian soul as a matter of national pride."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/199149
Here's what the U.S. can do
Here's what the U.S. can do about Iran: Nothing. Nada. Zilch. None of the other powers will go along with sanctions. Military action would be a catastrophe (We have 120,000 or so hostages at bases in Iraq, and how do you think people will react to $7 a gallon gas?). The only thing we have to offer Iran that's real are carrots such as increased integration in the international community. Of course, that's going to make them delay and dicker to see what more goodies they can get.
Then there's this. The internal political situation in Iran is slightly unstable. Leaders of ALL countries like to look tough and get the populace to rally around the flag.
It's easy. Burn. Less. Oil.
tagged as:- solution
We're a major world oil consumer; if we could restrain our appetite appreciably, the market price would decline, meaning less money in Iran's pocket.
I admit, this is loads less fun that blowing stuff up, but it puts financial pressure on Iran, is completely non-violent, and requires cooperation from nobody else. Of course, this also presumes that we, and literally, the vast majority of the US population, care enough to make this happen.
"Iran is infinitely more
"Iran is infinitely more peaceful than the US."
Tell that to Salman Rushdie. And all the victims of Hezbollah attacks that are undertaken with Iranian weapons with Hezbollah fighters trained by Iranian paramilitaries.
Tell that to the Iranian women who get stoned and gays who are hanged.
Yes. They are much more peaceful.
US is the most violent nation on earth
And don't forget to tell that to the 500,000 Iraqi children killed as a direct result of US sanctions on that country, or the half-million dead during the Iran-Iraq war in which the United States armed, financed and supported Saddam, including covering up his massacre of the Kurds in Halabja, for which the US tried to blame Iran.
Nevermind all the nun-raping death squads in Latin American trained and backed by the US of A.
more peaceful than us and our allies
Salman Rushdie is alive. Has anyone ever actually ever attempted to kill him? The US extrajudiciously assassinates 'terrorists' in Pakistan with unmanned drones.
Hezbollah defends Lebanese Shiites with some defensive aid by Iran. The US defends Israel with defensive aid; billions in high tech/extra lethal defensive aid every year. If the US would defend Lebanon's and Palestine's borders as generously and as vigorously as the US does Israel's, there would be less dead Israelis and lots less dead Arabs. Israel has the advantage of its military being trained by ex-kapos.
In Wyoming a homosexual was crucified.
1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.
The United States has the world's highest rape rate of the countries that publish such statistics. It's 4 times higher than Germany, 13 times higher than England, and 20 times higher than Japan.
Smart Power
One of the silliest manifestations of Bush Derangement Syndrome was the insistence that once the ugly neocons and their ilk were removed, the world would be a much more reasonable place. America's standing in the world would rise as foreign leaders realized that a more thoughtful, less agressive Administration had taken the helm.
It turns out our opponents are the same and our friends are the same, while rival nations and sunshine allies still stick it to us, despite our most earnest entreaties.
Go figure.
Iran's Achilles Heel
Though one of the richest oil nations on earth, Iran imports the majority of its processed gasoline from abroad, lacking the refinement capabilities at home. That is the one sanction that could make life hell on earth for the Islamist Ahmadinejad regime, and might even lead to a full-fledged revolution. Even when the government was in full control, gas rioting wracked the Islamic Republic during shortages. People torched gas stations everywhere.
Personally, I'm with Greens and believe the election was stolen. Therefore, the regime is illegitimate. As the protesters themselves asked loudly and publicly in the last round of protests, whose side is Obama on? Can't say I'm too happy about the execution of teenage boys for being gay or of children (140 on Death Row at last count), the hanging and stoning of young women for the crime of being raped, or Iran's de facto gay holocaust.
Let's face it. If a fascist terror-sponsoring regime like Iran treats its own people so barbarically, do you REALLY think they care about us or Israel, or should have nukes? Death To America ring any bells? Or their supplying of heavy weaponry and EFPs to the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Shiite extremists and Hezbollah in Iraq? When are people going to wake up to what the Islamic Republic is today? About the same time they woke up to Hitler? When it was too late?
Time to turn the screws. If they refuse to comply, cut off their gas and let Green events take their course. Can't get no worse.
Some facts to counter the nonsense
Ummm...actually, until the practice was outlawed in 2006, the world record holder for the execution of juveniles was the United States of America. All of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court voted in favor of continuing the practice, and it was only in 1986 that the US set 16 as the min. age for capital punishment.
The people of Iran including the opposition massively support their nuclear program and resent foreigners trying to deprive them of that right. See http://tinyurl.com/yhxzjp4
As for lack of refining capability, its only because gas is cheaper than water there, and the government has been looking for excuses to raise prices which sanctions will now provide. In any case, Iran has converted most of its auto fleet to use compressed natural gas anyway, in addition to building several new refineries.
And, the myth of "gay executions" in Iran has long been discredited. See http://tinyurl.com/yd9a487
And "support for terrorism" is ridiculous when you consider the UN has accused Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza -- with US aid.
Some facts to counter rubbish
Ummm...actually, until the practice was outlawed in 2006, the world record holder for the execution of juveniles was the United States of America. All of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court voted in favor of continuing the practice, and it was only in 1986 that the US set 16 as the min. age for capital punishment.
The people of Iran including the opposition massively support their nuclear program and resent foreigners trying to deprive them of that right. See http://tinyurl.com/yhxzjp4
As for lack of refining capability, its only because gas is cheaper than water there, and the government has been looking for excuses to raise prices which sanctions will now provide. In any case, Iran has converted most of its auto fleet to use compressed natural gas anyway, in addition to building several new refineries.
And, the myth of "gay executions" in Iran has long been discredited. See http://tinyurl.com/yd9a487
And "support for terrorism" is ridiculous when you consider the UN has accused Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza -- with US aid.
Smart Power
One of the silliest manifestations of Bush Derangement Syndrome was the contention that the world would become a more reasonable place once all the ugly neocons were replaced. America's standing and influence would rise as foreign leaders realized that a more reasonable, thoughtful Administration had taken control.
Turns out, all our enemies are the same and all our friends are the same, while the same old rivals and sunshine allies still stick it to us whenever they can, despite our most earnest entreaties.
Go figure.
Same policies under Obama as Bush on Iran
No, the real problem is that when it comes to Iran, Obama is following the same agenda as Bush by seeking to deny them the right to enrich their own uranium -- which results in the same standoff. ALl Obama has done thus far is a change in form, not substance.
Sorry for the Double Post
A server delay tricked me. And I should be in bed.