Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program

[Rani]

I'm pretty open about still being a supporter of President Obama but this isn't meant to be a "how great he is" kind of posting. We got the news today that Iran's has been building a secret plant capable of enriching uranium to weapons grade and that our intelligence agencies have know this for some time but were waiting for more concrete proof before making a public announcement. It's now been announced and with France and England on the US side demands are being made to shut down their nuclear weapons program under threat of world sanction.

What I find interesting is that Obama has the ear of other world leaders. Even his detractors note that he's been able to develop good base relations with other national leaders. It's been mentioned in the international press several times that he's very highly thought of across the globe and his wife has even become a close friend to the Queen of England.

There's always the "divine intervention" line of thought that you will get what you need when you need it. I find it interesting that the one person who has a snow balls chance in hell of rounding up the international community and imposing world sanctions is in the seat that would allow him to do so. Russia has already made a statement that it would likely be on board, which has been nearly impossible to get out of them in the past. Soooooo, regardless of what you think of Obama on the domestic front, is it possible that we have the right person with the right skills in the right position to be able to bring the world to the sanction table? I mean, even if he turned out to be useless domestically (which I don't think is going to happen), could it be synchronicity or "getting what we need when we need it" has happened in this looming crisis? Like him or hate him, you have to admit he's making major inroads in the cooperation department with the other major players who can give substantial power to any sanctions.

'Rani

[gaia.plateau]

Could you post a link to the news source?

I don't think there's any cause for alarm just yet... Iran has given full inspection privileges to the UN and as far as has been concluded, their energy programme is not capable of producing weapons-grade uranium.

Really, any nuclear power plant has the potential of producing weapons-grade uranium unless it's a light-water reactor, which costs like ten times as much to start up and run.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8275997.stm

"We don't have any problems with inspections of the facility. We have no fears," he said, referring to calls for immediate access to the site by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN watchdog.

http://english.aljazeera.net//news/middlee...1942180430.html

The only reason people are getting alarmed is because this is a new plant that was only revealed a few weeks before the beginning of production, which they are perfectly within international law to do. Personally, I think this is simply a case of Ahmadinejad thumbing his nose at his critics by being difficult... and I would hope that Obama and other world leaders realize this.

I'm no proponent of Tehran or Ahmadinejad, but I have to call this statement by Western-puppet Ban Ki-Moon as complete bullshit.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon expressed "grave concern" over Tehran's continued uranium enrichment activities, and said: "The burden of proof is on Iran".

I mean seriously. I'm not comfortable with the idea of a nuclear Iran in its present corrupt state, but apart from allowing full inspection rights, how exactly is Tehran expected to provide evidence for the non-existence of something? Completely ludicrous. Edited September 26, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[Rani]

It was www.CBSnews.com. Several different segments strung together. It's still on the home page there.

With a little bit of engineering and some specialized technology you can enrich uranium from waste to weapons grade in your bath room. My physics class did a study way back in junior college on the how-to all the way through building a backpack sized bomb. That's not the issue. "Supposedly" this one has been going on in Qom for some time and they were only waiting for some form of proof which they "supposedly" now have that the entire intent of this particular plant was to build weapons. I say "supposedly" because we're still dealing with a media broadcast which is only fairly reliable when the truth would cause a bigger commotion than an outright lie. And they are claiming this is a straight from the White House announcement.

Iran has needed sanctions for some time. I have friends in Tehran who returned home. I made friends with them while they were on student visas. And I've got a lot of expatriate friends who are Persian as they prefer to reference themselves here in the US at least. I haven't the faintest clue why anyone would bother to go to war in the traditional guns and bombs way. For most of the world real sanctions imposed would work if only we could get everybody in accord to impose them.

'Rani

[gaia.plateau]

Sanctions have never once in history worked... they only hurt the people. Targeted sanctions are inherently impotent by necessity.

I don't disagree with you on any particular point apart from that... but I remain in the position that rumours and gut feelings are not good bases upon which to craft policy.



Is this the article you were referring to? It's the only one I saw... but the only suppositions of weapons development that I found were in the comments at the bottom of the piece. Edited September 26, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[Rani]

Sanctions have never once in history worked... they only hurt the people. Targeted sanctions are inherently impotent by necessity.

I don't disagree with you on any particular point apart from that... but I remain in the position that rumours and gut feelings are not good bases upon which to craft policy.



Is this the article you were referring to? It's the only one I saw... but the only suppositions of weapons development that I found were in the comments at the bottom of the piece.

That's not the only one, that's only one segment. I saw it in broadcast, so I don't know completely what they're doing with the website.

I disagree with you about sanctions because the people are the answer. I'm pretty liberal but not remotely a bleeding heart liberal where I think you have to save "the people" at all costs. The people only allow their government to remain in power and do as they please even though they might disagree with policies through inaction. It is unfortunate but true that until you effect the people they will generally take no action until their own wants and desires are thwarted. I'm sorry if it seems hard hearted but nope, I'm not in favor of saving "the people" of anywhere including the US. Imagine an world wide oil sanction against the US because the world decided they would sell to to us because they didn't like our Republican party. How fast do you think the party would dissolve? Very, very fast. Based entirely on our own discomfort, because quite simply the human race as a whole is not all that generally alturistic. We didn't do much of anything as a colony until it began to affect our comfort and suddenly "Let's throw a Tea Party!" Such is humanity.

'Rani

[gaia.plateau]

Sanctions have never once in history worked... they only hurt the people. Targeted sanctions are inherently impotent by necessity.

I don't disagree with you on any particular point apart from that... but I remain in the position that rumours and gut feelings are not good bases upon which to craft policy.



Is this the article you were referring to? It's the only one I saw... but the only suppositions of weapons development that I found were in the comments at the bottom of the piece.

That's not the only one, that's only one segment. I saw it in broadcast, so I don't know completely what they're doing with the website.

I disagree with you about sanctions because the people are the answer. I'm pretty liberal but not remotely a bleeding heart liberal where I think you have to save "the people" at all costs. The people only allow their government to remain in power and do as they please even though they might disagree with policies through inaction. It is unfortunate but true that until you effect the people they will generally take no action until their own wants and desires are thwarted. I'm sorry if it seems hard hearted but nope, I'm not in favor of saving "the people" of anywhere including the US. Imagine an world wide oil sanction against the US because the world decided they would sell to to us because they didn't like our Republican party. How fast do you think the party would dissolve? Very, very fast. Based entirely on our own discomfort, because quite simply the human race as a whole is not all that generally alturistic. We didn't do much of anything as a colony until it began to affect our comfort and suddenly "Let's throw a Tea Party!" Such is humanity.

'Rani

It isn't that sanctions are bad because they hurt the people, it's that sanctions are useless because they only hurt the people.

But that said, even if they were useful despite the their impact upon the people, I wouldn't think one need be a bleeding heart liberal to chagrin the death and suffering of millions for the sake of geopolitical power plays.

To the analogy of theoretical oil sanctions against the US... history very strongly suggests that it would only intensify support for the government in power by giving them an external "other" to rally support against, in distraction from other issues. I can list myriad of examples from any region on earth to support this. Edited September 26, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[Rani]

Sanctions have never once in history worked... they only hurt the people. Targeted sanctions are inherently impotent by necessity.

I don't disagree with you on any particular point apart from that... but I remain in the position that rumours and gut feelings are not good bases upon which to craft policy.



Is this the article you were referring to? It's the only one I saw... but the only suppositions of weapons development that I found were in the comments at the bottom of the piece.

That's not the only one, that's only one segment. I saw it in broadcast, so I don't know completely what they're doing with the website.

I disagree with you about sanctions because the people are the answer. I'm pretty liberal but not remotely a bleeding heart liberal where I think you have to save "the people" at all costs. The people only allow their government to remain in power and do as they please even though they might disagree with policies through inaction. It is unfortunate but true that until you effect the people they will generally take no action until their own wants and desires are thwarted. I'm sorry if it seems hard hearted but nope, I'm not in favor of saving "the people" of anywhere including the US. Imagine an world wide oil sanction against the US because the world decided they would sell to to us because they didn't like our Republican party. How fast do you think the party would dissolve? Very, very fast. Based entirely on our own discomfort, because quite simply the human race as a whole is not all that generally alturistic. We didn't do much of anything as a colony until it began to affect our comfort and suddenly "Let's throw a Tea Party!" Such is humanity.

'Rani

It isn't that sanctions are bad because they hurt the people, it's that sanctions are useless because they only hurt the people.

But that said, even if they were useful despite the their impact upon the people, I wouldn't think one need be a bleeding heart liberal to chagrin the death and suffering of millions for the sake of geopolitical power plays.

To the analogy of theoretical oil sanctions against the US... history very strongly suggests that it would only intensify support for the government in power by giving them an external "other" to rally support against, in distraction from other issues. I can list myriad of examples from any region on earth to support this.

Chagrin the death and suffering of millions for the sake of geopolitical power plays? It's not a chess game in which the pawns have no say so. We keep the people in power. We do. Because of the lack of alturism in the human race, nobody gets together long enough to do anything about things we like to talk about being wrong in our living rooms. People always, always, look to their own personal benefit before consideration of others. I personally think it's part of our drive towards continued survival and understandable. Every law that has ever been passed has done so at the allowance of the people. Whether supported by a military in the case of a dictator or in the case of a democracy, it's still allowance of the people. In the case of the dictator, the military are part of the people and therefore equally responsible because when they take off that uniform at the end of the day, they're still fathers, sons, husbands, etc. Every injustice every performed has also been allowed by the people. All through history. There are many examples of sanctions not working, true, but there are an equal number of when they have worked in history - but only when the sanction is complete and absolute. Dating all the way back to Lysistrata. The problem is that not enough people will support them in order to play to their own interests. Like the arms dealer who gets a hundred times inflated prices in a war zone where no UN partner nation will ship. The problem isn't the sanction - it's getting everyone to agree to and uphold them.

'Rani

[gaia.plateau]

Chagrin the death and suffering of millions for the sake of geopolitical power plays? It's not a chess game in which the pawns have no say so. We keep the people in power. We do.

It's a bit difficult for populations to stage revolutions (if that is what you're insinuating should happen) when the great powers of the world do everything in their power to keep corrupt governments in place.

People always, always, look to their own personal benefit before consideration of others. I personally think it's part of our drive towards continued survival and understandable.

If this were the case, and every person in the world completely selfish and driven by greed, we would have died out as a species before we thought of agriculture. Certainly there are examples of human selfishness in history, and vastly more if one has the very convenient perspective of an economist, but they are outweighed by altruism a million times. Certainly there are some nations which have cultures of selfishness, but they are not 1 in 200 and even in those cases it is not homogeneous.

One has to ask, without altruism, how can we possibly combat ecological collapse and/or climate change? How can we possibly see nuclear disarmament, or reconciliation between the North and South, religious tolerance, or the innumerable remaining list of global threats before us? How can we possibly avoid annihilation in our lifetime?

Arguments against altruism amount to one thing... obsolete, Cold War rhetoric cooked up in neoliberal think tanks, resurrected over the past decade to justify the new global push for reinforcing structures of vampiric international trade.

I've read the books, journal articles and op ed pieces by economists and psychologists who put forth the arguments against altruism, and if I had more time and interest I would deconstruct all of the flimsy claims that have been made right here. But as both sides of the debate have yet to prove the other unequivocally wrong, I do think it's this simple. Without altruism, we are necessarily and unarguably doomed (the only possible arguments require the denial of climate change, ecological collapse, arms races, post-westphalianism, the world being round, etc.). Therefore, there must be altruism.

Every law that has ever been passed has done so at the allowance of the people. Whether supported by a military in the case of a dictator or in the case of a democracy, it's still allowance of the people. In the case of the dictator, the military are part of the people and therefore equally responsible because when they take off that uniform at the end of the day, they're still fathers, sons, husbands, etc. Every injustice every performed has also been allowed by the people. All through history.

Only if we're comfortable stretching the definition of "allow" severely. If a five year old child with one hundred kalashnakovs pointed at his head stands by as soldiers rape his sister, is he allowing that to happen? Would you propose that there is some action he could take to change it? Because these are effectively the circumstances through with 99.999999999999% of laws have been passed since recorded history.

There are many examples of sanctions not working, true, but there are an equal number of when they have worked in history - but only when the sanction is complete and absolute. Dating all the way back to Lysistrata.

And if there's an equal number... well this is just off the top of my head, sanctions this past century which have not only failed, but Could you give one example from the last 100 years? Because regardless of fictional accounts from millenniums ago... sanctions today means multilateral, which usually means United Nations.

Here are some sanctions off the top of my head which actively helped the undesirable government in question.

North Korea 1950
Cuba 1962
Iran 1979
Zimbabwe 2003
Syria 2004
Haiti 2004
Early 90s - Iraq, Myanmar, Angola
Mid 80s - Chile, Argentina, Philippines.

Okay, hopefully that will be enough to get started if there are an equal number which worked... remember that these are not examples wherein sanctions failed, but wherein sanctions actually helped the ruling government. You say that it's inconsequential that sanctions hurt the population, because it's up to the population to overthrow the government. Let's forget for a moment that countries like Russia, France, the US, Britain and China continue to exert influence and control in countries like Haiti, Argentina, Columbia, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc. etc. etc. and in many cases actively prop up these corrupt regimes out of neoliberal interests. Throw that reality right out the window; it isn't needed.

Revolutions aren't things which spring up out of nowhere and depose of a regime like a cool spring mist... they require a strong civil society, structural opportunity, resources, affinity, international support, political opportunity, and many other things. Sanctions obliterate civil society, erode resources, close off opportunities and discourage support. I've been in places under sanction, I've interviewed people there about politics, economics, and civil society. And invariably one answer always tends to keep coming up, no matter where you are (to paraphrase from many): when you're dying of starvation, political action is not in the forefront of your agenda. Edited September 26, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[Rani]

Chagrin the death and suffering of millions for the sake of geopolitical power plays? It's not a chess game in which the pawns have no say so. We keep the people in power. We do.

It's a bit difficult for populations to stage revolutions (if that is what you're insinuating should happen) when the great powers of the world do everything in their power to keep corrupt governments in place. It's not a matter of whether or not I think they should. It's a matter of the people themselves need to determine and carry this out on their own. And we need to stay out of it hence sanctions. Sanctions are not designed to hurt anyone. They're a matter of "okay, you want to play that way, we're taking our ball and going home until you agree to play by the rules." Don't blame the sanction - blame those who insist they have the right to do as they please and still play in the world market. China never needed sanctions. They closed their doors to the Western world and worked it out for themselves. You could argue it's not to the peoples' benefit, but that's their choice. And of course revolutions are hard. That's why they're called revolutions!

People always, always, look to their own personal benefit before consideration of others. I personally think it's part of our drive towards continued survival and understandable.

If this were the case, and every person in the world completely selfish and driven by greed, we would have died out as a species before we thought of agriculture. Certainly there are examples of human selfishness in history, and vastly more if one has the very convenient perspective of an economist, but they are outweighed by altruism a million times. Certainly there are some nations which have cultures of selfishness, but they are not 1 in 200 and even in those cases it is not homogeneous.

One has to ask, without altruism, how can we possibly combat ecological collapse and/or climate change? How can we possibly see nuclear disarmament, or reconciliation between the North and South, religious tolerance, or the innumerable remaining list of global threats before us? How can we possibly avoid annihilation in our lifetime?

Arguments against altruism amount to one thing... obsolete, Cold War rhetoric cooked up in neoliberal think tanks, resurrected over the past decade to justify the new global push for reinforcing structures of vampiric international trade.

I've read the books, journal articles and op ed pieces by economists and psychologists who put forth the arguments against altruism, and if I had more time and interest I would deconstruct all of the flimsy claims that have been made right here. But as both sides of the debate have yet to prove the other unequivocally wrong, I do think it's this simple. Without altruism, we are necessarily and unarguably doomed (the only possible arguments require the denial of climate change, ecological collapse, arms races, post-westphalianism, the world being round, etc.). Therefore, there must be altruism.

I'm not against alturism. I'm highly alturistic and spend a lot of time doing charity work myself - but if you actually read what I said (now highlighted in red) you'd see what I said. Do you seriously think for example Mother Teresa would have been able to accomplish anything without the backing and support of the Church? She was personally assured by the church she was a part of that as one of their clergy person she would have food, and shelter and medical attention. Therefore she was free to devote her time to a "selfless" cause. Selflessness can only come into play once our own needs are taken care of.

Every law that has ever been passed has done so at the allowance of the people. Whether supported by a military in the case of a dictator or in the case of a democracy, it's still allowance of the people. In the case of the dictator, the military are part of the people and therefore equally responsible because when they take off that uniform at the end of the day, they're still fathers, sons, husbands, etc. Every injustice every performed has also been allowed by the people. All through history.

Only if we're comfortable stretching the definition of "allow" severely. If a five year old child with one hundred kalashnakovs pointed at his head stands by as soldiers rape his sister, is he allowing that to happen? Would you propose that there is some action he could take to change it? Because these are effectively the circumstances through with 99.999999999999% of laws have been passed since recorded history.

Honestly you're reading too much media. "If it bleeds it leads." is the creed of the media. I've actually traveled to whose countries. El Salvador, Cuba, China, the Middle East and all over the globe. War torn? Yes. People without any choices whatsoever? Very, very rarely. There are alway choices. Even if those choices are only to see where things are going and pack up your family and quietly walk away. Millions of refugees have done so and while most went towards refugee centers that turned out to be terrible camps, there were many who lived off the land as best they could and slowly made their way on their own out of the chaos and war into a brighter future. All because they would not sit by and accept the status quo while doing nothing more than complaining about it in their living rooms. And a five year old child doesn't "allow" anything. We're talking adult grown up people who make their own choices.

There are many examples of sanctions not working, true, but there are an equal number of when they have worked in history - but only when the sanction is complete and absolute. Dating all the way back to Lysistrata.

And if there's an equal number... well this is just off the top of my head, sanctions this past century which have not only failed, but Could you give one example from the last 100 years? Because regardless of fictional accounts from millenniums ago... sanctions today means multilateral, which usually means United Nations.

[b]"][b]That's my point! The United Nations has no teeth! It has nev er effectively imposed a damn thing. Sure they put it down on paper but 90% of it's member nations refuse to follow it. Even China who is one of the other permanent members of the Security Council has never agreed to or abided to any sanction against any nation except the now defunct USSR and they were at a cold war fire off a couple rounds now and then status with them thereby relegating "sanctions" to a this is what we're doing anyway attitude.
Here are some sanctions off the top of my head which actively helped the undesirable government in question.

North Korea 1950 North Korea followed China by choosing to close it's doors more or less to the Western world believing it corrupt. Sanctions were only in conformance with their own wishes.
Cuba 1962 - Uh, no.... I've actually been to Cuba. When you get off the plane at the Havana airport, there's a billboard sized sign that says "30 milliion children are sleeping on the streets tonight. Not one of them is Cuban." However, it was the sanctions that eventually led to a massive exodus on the part of Cubans who immigrated primarily into the United States. Many of them friends of mine.
Iran 1979 Full sanctions have never once been applied to Iran. Partial through the United States and it's allies, but from the world at large? Never.
Zimbabwe 2003 Same as above. Partial through the United States and it's allies, but from the world at large? Never.
Syria 2004 According to my Syrian friends they worked quite well. They left Syria not because of the government but becsause they sanctions resulted in their being unable to live at the standard they wanted for themselves and revolution was imminent in their opinion.
Haiti 2004 Been there. Haiti has always been the dumping ground of the world and ignored. This is one nation that either needs serious sustenance or to be absorbed into another
Early 90s - Iraq, Myanmar, Angola Same as above. Partial through the United States and it's allies, but from the world at large? Never.
Mid 80s - Chile, Argentina, Philippines. Been there. Been to all of these and the sanctions actually put enormous pressure on the governments through the people who eventually overturned those governments. Without a whole lot of help from the rest of the world.

Okay, hopefully that will be enough to get started if there are an equal number which worked... remember that these are not examples wherein sanctions failed, but wherein sanctions actually helped the ruling government. You say that it's inconsequential that sanctions hurt the population, because it's up to the population to overthrow the government. Let's forget for a moment that countries like Russia, France, the US, Britain and China continue to exert influence and control in countries like Haiti, Argentina, Columbia, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc. etc. etc. and in many cases actively prop up these corrupt regimes out of neoliberal interests. Throw that reality right out the window; it isn't needed.

I'm in full agreement the major players including the US, British constituent, French,etc. need to stop meddling. Only when they do will anything anywhere have the opportunity to settle itself into it's own natural balance based on the self determination of the people who live there.

Revolutions aren't things which spring up out of nowhere and depose of a regime like a cool spring mist... they require a strong civil society, structural opportunity, resources, affinity, international support, political opportunity, and many other things. Sanctions obliterate civil society, erode resources, close off opportunities and discourage support. I've been in places under sanction, I've interviewed people there about politics, economics, and civil society. And invariably one answer always tends to keep coming up, no matter where you are (to paraphrase from many): when you're dying of starvation, political action is not in the forefront of your agenda.

I looked at your profile and I get it. Really I do. You're 24 years old. You have wonderful young ideals about the world being a better place and alturism, and people shouldn't suffer and all of that. You're to be commended for that attitude. You're quoting me damn near word for word when I was your age. I based most of my opinion on what I read and watched on the news channels along with what I'd been taught in school and studied for myself. And then I got out into the world and actually spent time with those "oppressed people". Most of them are making choices for themselves to tolerate the status quo. And they do so knowingly and admittedly because what matters to them is taking care of themselves. I agree political action isn't at the forefront of the agenda of someone starving to death, but the fact is that most aren't starving to death. They are working and living within the system. Sure you can interview them. Are they going to tell you they're surviving within the system by working with it? Of course not. If you actually live with them for weeks or sometimes months at a time as I have, I think you'd see a different side of things.

Note that we're talking about the world at large and what I'm saying about most of the woirld doesn't apply to a Somalia for example during the worst of it's shortages - which by the way are still ongoing. And I'm not saying leaving people to starve is a good thing to do, but I believe in most cases it may be a necessary thing to do. Because people have to reach the point where they make changes for themselves and stop working within the system that exploits them. It's kind of hard to be a dictator when the entire population has left the country. Self determination comes with self responsiblity. You cna't have it both ways. You can't sit for the world to save you and then complain when they don't do it your way. It's like the old joke about the doctor where a patient tells his doctor to quit acting like God. The doctor replies "Then you need to get off your knees." The world needs to place sanctions, abide by them, and essentially walk away until they figure it out for themselves. Only then does it have even a minor chance of success.

'Rani

[Balthazar]

BohoWildChild: It seems your view on the effects of sanctions and causes for revolutions basically contradicts what every scholar on these fields would have to say about it. With "there are an equal number of when they [sanctions] have worked in history" in mind, would you mind giving a few examples? Preferably from the last 200 years. Edited September 26, 2009 by Balthazar

[Rani]

BohoWildChild: It seems your view on the effects of sanctions and causes for revolutions basically contradicts what every scholar on these fields would have to say about it. With "there are an equal number of when they [sanctions] have worked in history" in mind, would you mind giving a few examples? Preferably from the last 200 years.

I could do the history tracing but frankly I don't have time and the thread has gotten off course through my own fault as much as Gaia's. The question was about the synchronicity of what's happening. But I will submit the following with is the most reasonable argument describing why sanctions do and don't work From a Myanmar (formerly Burma) journalist.

Sanctions work

Nyo Ohn Myint

May 29, 2007 (DVB)—If international economic and diplomatic sanctions against Burma's military had failed, the regime would be able to dismiss all political opponents as history.

Nevertheless, opposition is still going strong and the levels of political activity and pressure are still increasing in the country, regardless of the military's endless brutality.

The only significant sanctions against Burma's regime come from the US. The unwillingness of EU, ASEAN and other democratic countries to assert efficient political pressure may contribute to the regime's continuing refusal to accept positive political developments inside Burma.

Economic sanctions are not an end game solution. They are part of a process to achieve the type of environment where final solutions can be found and attained. At this very moment, sanctions are acting as a safeguard, putting a certain amount of economic and political pressure on the military.

Without sanctions and the global attention they create, the Burmese regime would have a free hand to oppress and brutalize its people without hesitation. Thus, the threat of sanctions against the Burmese government is both necessary and needed.

Since the US's isolation policy on Burma started in 1990, the junta has attracted direct investment from various industries all over the world. Bilateral economic ties with neighboring countries such as China and Thailand have been built, enabling the military to establish border trade with these two important allies.

However, the junta has been unable to improve its overall economic stability and development. Why?

Regardless of the junta's attempts to normalize its bilateral relations with China and ASEAN, both refuse to invest in major projects that require heavy capital investments. They have instead tried to keep up border trade and create small-scale trading schemes within both the public and private sectors.

The junta's top generals, led by senior general Than Shwe, want to keep both political and economic power in the hands of the few top military members, frustrating economic players and failing to create the much-needed economic development in the country. Thus, the normalization of bilateral trade with its neighbors has not born fruit for the junta or the country's economy.

The junta's generals have been eager to normalize relations with the US government, soften the sanctions against them and marginalize the opposition. Former prime minister Khin Nyunt tried several times to approach the US government with the intention of trying to convince them to soften their sanctions policy without any actual political reforms inside Burma.

The SPDC hired a US public relations firm, DCI Associates, as lobbyists to try to normalize relations with the US in early 2000. The attempt failed hopelessly and the PR firm was dropped.

As a matter of fact, the US's limited sanctions alone have demonstrated to the junta, the need for an end to its iron-fisted policies on labor and human rights abuses. The junta wants to reduce the pressure coming from both international organizations and governments while giving false promises and trying to maintain its status quo position of ruling the county without legitimacy and brutally suppressing the opposition.

If the US-led sanctions against Burma's general were uniformly supported by other nations, particularly by the EU and other so-called civilized Western democracies, the results and the success rate would be much more tangible. The EU alone imported US $149.72 million worth of goods from Burma between January and October in 2006. Germany's share of this was $60.71 million.

Unlike North Korea, Burma's leaders face a major internal conflict with pro-democracy elements and ethnic nationalities groups. Neither Chinese and ASEAN diplomats, academics nor the handful of pro-SPDC observers can guarantee that without sanctions, the conditions inside Burma would improve and allow a political liberalization process or the reemergence of fundamental rights.

It can also be argued that the sanctions against the military junta have asserted certain pressures on the regime to reduce human rights abuses and push towards political reform.

More than 70 percent of the population depends on agriculture and sanctions do not harm the agricultural sector. Unfortunately, many farmers have abandoned their land and are searching for a better life in Burma's neighboring countries.

The junta's iron rules and strict regulations and the state's monopoly imposed against poorer people, which prohibits free trade between states and townships, goes very much against its own propaganda on market economics and commercial liberalization.

The poor facilities from the paddy fields to the rice mill and the heavy restrictions on trading have discouraged farmers who have lost hope in their traditional profession and have started abandoning it altogether.

Economic mismanagement and abuses cause constant economic downturns. Facing shortages in basic needs such as proper health care, education and social services, economic infrastructure and business incentives, Burma's urban dwellers lack the same opportunities to survive as their rural counterparts.

Sanctions are designed for complex political situations and have nothing to do with the junta's failed economic liberalization attempts. The junta never reinvests its export revenues but keeps spending on defense and security measures—more than $1 billion has been spent on the extension of the defense forces while less than three percent of the GDP has gone to education and health.

Sanctions may not produce instant results, especially when they are aimed at authoritarian regimes such as the SPDC, but the attention they create prevents millions of human rights abuses and forced labor cases.

Some consider Burma to be a regional threat and ASEAN countries fear that Burma will tarnish the region's image. China stubbornly continues to categories the situation in Burma as a 'domestic issue.'

If, or indeed when, Burma's domestic problems worsen and the conflict spreads across the region, China and ASEAN will feel the heat and may wish that they had taken a much more serious look at sanctions.

[Balthazar]

That's one article. From one journalist. Here's another one. From another journalist.

Americans like to think of sanctions as a targeted measure, but restricting Iran’s oil imports would distort trade in the whole region, argues Will Ward.

Iran’s Achilles heel, goes the mantra of many Washington hawks, is its dependence on imported petrol – the result of underinvestment in its energy industry during three decades of sanctions. While the country is a net oil exporter, Iran’s domestic refining capacity lags, forcing the Islamic Republic to import roughly a third of its daily petrol needs from abroad and ration consumer fuel purchases.

The US Congress is currently considering a bill, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which would exploit this weakness by penalising companies and individuals that import petrol into Iran or invest in its domestic oil and gas infrastructure. The rosy logic behind the sanctions bill, which currently enjoys majority support in both houses of Congress, is not new: the hope is that ordinary Iranians, squeezed at the petrol pump, will pressure their recalcitrant leaders to halt uranium enrichment, embrace Israel and stop their unpalatable activities in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region. That, or Tehran will lash out frantically in response, which will lead to an international consensus for even tougher sanctions – or worse.

Opponents of the bill have already pointed out many of its flaws: for starters, Iran could seek investments from Russia and China to build new refineries. Beyond that logistical loophole, it is also the case that Iranians generally support the country’s nuclear programme – and even if they didn’t, forcing Iran’s increasingly authoritarian government to reverse course would require months, if not years, of struggle and bloodshed. Sanctions against oil-producing nations often starve business and civil society, while the continuing flow of oil profits to the state leaves the targeted regimes more, rather than less, powerful – Saddam Hussein’s reign in Iraq being the best example.

But even this litany of concerns about the efficacy of sanctions leaves aside a critical issue: the potentially disruptive consequences for the wider region. America, the world’s most prolific user of economic sanctions, conceives of them as narrowly directed measures against the target state – the impact on neighbouring states rarely registers in Washington. But sanctions, particularly on consumer products with mass demand like petrol, tend to produce distortions in regional trade dynamics that can have political repercussions. Powerful incentives are generated to meet demand for the sanctioned products, inside and outside of the targeted state, creating economic imbalances in the region and political tensions with the state that has imposed the sanctions. And in the case of petrol sanctions on Iran these consequences are likely to be acute, given the long and storied history of trade relations across the Gulf.

Consider the following thought experiment. Assume the sanctions act is passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama. Let’s also assume that, contrary to the loopholes outlined above, US pressure on oil companies and other states does indeed manage to double or treble the price Iran pays for its petrol. What are the regional repercussions?

First, Iran would almost certainly begin industrial scale efforts to import (read: smuggle) petrol from wherever it can; with their high subsidies on petrol, which keep consumer prices artificially low, GCC states will be the most likely targets. The effects might be felt most severely in Oman, where petrol is cheaper than bottled water, and in the UAE; both countries maintain patterns of commerce with Iran that date back centuries. Filling the fuel needs of 65 million Iranians – while taking advantage of subsidies intended for domestic consumers – will stretch GCC government coffers, producing a range of political and economic stresses that could force cuts in social spending or energy investment.

This cross-Gulf smuggling trade will start slowly at first – petrol-filled Coca-Cola bottles thrown into a dhow’s shipping crate – but it will quickly become sophisticated and institutionalised. In Iran, financial and political gains will accrue to the most efficient smugglers. American statements have long identified the Revolutionary Guard as key players in sanctions-busting trade in all types of goods, not just those related to Iran’s nuclear programme. The paramilitary group has experience in operating aircraft and ships, setting up front companies and other related activities – positioning them to move easily into the petrol trade if sanctions are passed. Since much of the smuggled petrol will be coming across the Gulf, the Guards will seek to secure shipping in the waterway and might try to expand networks inside Gulf States themselves.

If the United States is serious about choking off Iranian petrol imports, it will need to coordinate policy extensively with GCC states to stop this informal cross-Gulf petrol trade. This will prove difficult due to the sheer amounts of money involved, and also because of the trade dynamics that sanctions regimes produce. Recent work by the Harvard University researcher Bryan Early demonstrates that friends of the sanctioning state are in fact more likely to trade in violation of sanctions because of the security afforded by the alliance; in the case of the GCC and Iran, Washington may be reluctant to put too much pressure on its Arab allies to help enforce the sanctions regime, lest it jeopardise its valuable strategic partnerships in the Gulf. Historically, then, the desire to preserve security ties has trumped imperatives of sanctions enforcement. This dynamic could change, of course, but at the cost of strained relations between America and the Gulf States – as well as an increase in internal GCC tensions over Iran between countries like Qatar and Oman, which remain friendly with the Islamic Republic, and those, like Saudi Arabia, which do not.

New sanctions would also accelerate brain drain and capital flight from Iran. The Iranian Rial is dropping precipitously in the face of falling oil production – a trend that can only continue if Iran’s energy sector is starved of investment. This could, of course, benefit the UAE – as a hub for trade, services, capital and talent, the Emirates stand to benefit from many types of regional instability, and if implemented, the proposed sanctions make it likely that more Iranians of means will decide to move themselves and their money to Dubai. But the wider consequences remain unpredictable: an exodus across the Gulf could, in fact, bolster the Iranian regime by removing many of its domestic opponents.

It is not clear exactly how the sanctions would be implemented; the current draft legislation seems to provide for financial penalties for individuals and companies, while some critics have described it as a “blockade,” giving the implication of military enforcement. Either way, taking material steps to cut off petrol, the lifeblood of a state’s economy, is an act of war. States respond to such acts in fundamentally unpredictable ways, but history tells us that wars tend to escalate, last longer and cost more lives than participants expected at the outset.

Proponents of further sanctions against Iran have sometimes couched their arguments in terms of the security of America’s Gulf allies, but the GCC states, home to a considerable American military presence, would also become potential targets for Iranian retaliation. Iranian leaders have in the past made direct threats against Gulf States to this effect, while analysts have often contemplated the possibility that Iran will use mines, or small boats, to cut off trade in the Straits of Hormuz, through which 90 per cent of Gulf oil exports travel.

If the worst of these outcomes does not come to pass, a partially successful effort at cutting off Iran’s petrol imports and domestic refining capacity could offer limited gains to some specific parties. Qatar, for example, would benefit from Iran’s absence as a competitor in world natural gas markets; the UAE could gain from an exodus of Iranian wealth and talent to Dubai, and regional trading families stand to profit from the lucrative trade in black market petrol. But these isolated benefits would accrue to the few at the expense of heightened geopolitical risk for the many. Iran would very likely seek to secure petrol supplies across the Gulf, which would increase the risk of a miscalculation that triggers a disastrous wider conflict.

At present, the US Congress seems determined to lay down a tough line – hoping to maintain a credible threat of “crippling sanctions” if Iran refuses to cooperate. Yet precious little thought seems to have been given to the feasibility of implementing the sanctions or to the costs that such a programme would impose on America’s allies in the Gulf. In the worst case, the petrol sanctions – framed as an attempt to avoid war with Iran – might have precisely the opposite effect.

Built to spill


I understand that you might not have the time to dig into the history books right now, but if it's true that there's an equal number of sanctions that has worked it shouldn't be that hard to throw in a couple of examples.

[gaia.plateau]

Okay... red bolded text is not the most conducive for reading, as helpful as it can be for conveying frustration. Strains the eyes. I'll do my best to respond. Sorry in advance if I lapse into formal or academic language, force of habits and all that.

"It's not a matter of whether or not I think they should. It's a matter of the people themselves need to determine and carry this out on their own."

But you're making it a matter of whether or not you think they should, when you construct this dichotomy for them of revolution vs being lazy. It's not a matter of choice, there are innumerable factors and complications involved. I'm not comfortable with condemning whole populations to death because they didn't have the tremendous fortune for the specific structural circumstances that allow for revolution to spring up around them.

"Sanctions are not designed to hurt anyone."

It doesn't matter what sanctions are designed to do, it matters what they do. Blockading food and fuel from a population and/or progressively raising tariffs against them has, historically, hurt people. I have a difficult time imagining evidence to the contrary.

"And of course revolutions are hard. That's why they're called revolutions!"

Referring to the above, just for cohesiveness- the point is not that they are hard, the point is that in many situations they are impossible (refer to my last post for details). Coming from a country which was lucky enough to have the right circumstances for revolution, and criticizing others who have not, is in my mind akin to a sighted person criticizing a blind person for running into doors.

"I'm not against alturism. I'm highly alturistic and spend a lot of time doing charity work myself - but if you actually read what I said (now highlighted in red) you'd see what I said. Do you seriously think for example Mother Teresa would have been able to accomplish anything without the backing and support of the Church? She was personally assured by the church she was a part of that as one of their clergy person she would have food, and shelter and medical attention. Therefore she was free to devote her time to a "selfless" cause. Selflessness can only come into play once our own needs are taken care of."

This is taking a very narrow view of altruism... it doesn't need to be restricted to devoting one's life to others without a single thought for oneself. Altruism is simply having equal or more concern for the needs of others, as for yourself. It's as simple as that. My mind baffles at large-scale examples from the past five or six decades; victims in concentration camps sacrificing themselves to save their friends, family and complete strangers... people caught in natural disasters doing the same thing... the evidence for the existence of "true altruism" is staggering. It's not easy, maybe it's not even for everyone, but it exists; the argument against its existence, as I said, has been a purely political and economic campaign of blind rhetoric.

"Honestly you're reading too much media."

I think it more likely that I'm reading too many history books. "Every law that has ever been passed has done so at the allowance of the people". Ours is a hundred-thousand years history of people oppressing one another, whether it be ethnic superiority, kings in castles or ideology-based dictatorships. Perhaps I misinterpreted you, and you meant "Every law that has ever been passed... recently". If this is the case, my rebuttal of 99.99999999% to the contrary would be made hyperbolic, and something like 75% would be more appropriate.

"I've actually traveled to whose countries."

You're making this claim as if I hadn't. What did you do there? In Guatemala I spoke with nearly one hundred genocide survivors about their experiences over the forty-years of US-mandated systematic extermination, living in shanty towns and remote villages which had seen death squad massacres as recently as a month before my arrival. In Cuba I interviewed over three dozen peasants, students, professionals, professors, soldiers and public officials, including former revolutionaries, and was arrested and interrogated not once but twice for asking some pretty tame questions. Haiti, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua: similar stories.

"Yes. People without any choices whatsoever? Very, very rarely. There are alway choices. Even if those choices are only to see where things are going and pack up your family and quietly walk away...All because they would not sit by and accept the status quo while doing nothing more than complaining about it in their living rooms"

How is packing up and quietly walking away not "allowing" corrupt people to remain in power? And how are people supposed to do that when they're in shackles? How many people in the countries we're discussing do you think actually have living rooms?

"That's my point! The United Nations has no teeth! It has nev er effectively imposed a damn thing."

Then who do you expect will impose sanctions? Superman? Unilateral sanctions have never had a single success story in history.

"Even China who is one of the other permanent members of the Security Council has never agreed to or abided to any sanction against any nation except the now defunct USSR"

Except for North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Myanmar, and a thousand others available through a short google search.

"Uh, no.... I've actually been to Cuba. When you get off the plane at the Havana airport, there's a billboard sized sign that says "30 milliion children are sleeping on the streets tonight. Not one of them is Cuban." However, it was the sanctions that eventually led to a massive exodus on the part of Cubans who immigrated primarily into the United States. Many of them friends of mine."

Yes, I actually have been too. And spoken with over a dozen families of expatriots to the US. When I have more time I would be happy to provide you with some of the overwhelming evidence of the counter-efficacy of the blockade against Cuba, for now I can share with you my personal experience. I spoke with ministers of agriculture, defense and foreign policy in La Habana, all of whom took not a little pride and arrogance in their ability to use the blockade to turn the people against the United States, distracting them from problems at home (I'm sure you're familiar with "la perioda especial"). Why do you think it's Barack Obama and not Raul Castro beginning dialogue on taking down the "sanctions"? If you have been there, apart from billboards about children on the street I'm sure you'll have see the uncountable signs, posters and government-mandated graffiti espousing how the American blockade is the sole cause of all Cuban problems.

Further... and less to the point of sanctions but addressing something you've brought up... beginning with the "massive exodus". Are you referring to Castro emptying his jails and sending the prisoners to the US on a boat after you declared that you would accept all refugees? I'll have to check my numbers again for the exact statistic, but the number of actual Cuban illegal immigrants to the US is a minuscule fraction of what the Fox News condemners of socialism claim. I personally spoke to these people and their families, (I would be happy to send you my piece all about this stuff). Virtually no one has ever left Cuba for the US because of a lack of freedoms, or human rights abuses, or anything like that; Cubans risk their lives on rafts for Nikes.

"Full sanctions have never once been applied to Iran. Partial through the United States and it's allies, but from the world at large? Never."
"Same as above. Partial through the United States and it's allies, but from the world at large? Never."

You were just complaining like two paragraphs ago at how useless the world at large is at applying sanctions. What would be your solution?

"According to my Syrian friends they worked quite well. They left Syria not because of the government but becsause they sanctions resulted in their being unable to live at the standard they wanted for themselves and revolution was imminent in their opinion."

So... the sanctions worked because they caused the people to suffer so much that some of them (presumably the few who were rich enough to manage it) were forced to leave the country. I don't know if I'm comfortable with this conclusion.

"Been there. Haiti has always been the dumping ground of the world and ignored. This is one nation that either needs serious sustenance or to be absorbed into another "

Haitians wish. In 1994 Jean Bertrand Aristide was their first democratically elected leader in time out of mind, who ran on a platform of building hospitals, schools, liberating the media and removing foreign interference and control. We applied sanctions, when that didn't work we overthrew and almost certainly assassinated him, and set up a brand new brutal dictatorship in his place.

"Chile, Argentina, Philippines. Been there. Been to all of these and the sanctions actually put enormous pressure on the governments through the people who eventually overturned those governments. Without a whole lot of help from the rest of the world."

Philippines was a violent revolution... Chile was a popular one... Argentina was an international intervention. I can post some literature on how futile and counterproductive these sanctions were, or relate some of the stories that my friends and teachers, Chilean and Argentinian revolutionary leaders, have told to me. Either way.

"You're 24 years old. You have wonderful young ideals about the world being a better place and alturism, and people shouldn't suffer and all of that."

I don't think that age is necessarily an indicator of experience, objectivity or knowledge. I am probably the most non-idealistic person I know, a near-complete cynic in fact, and have absolutely no problem with people suffering. What I care about is accuracy of understanding, sincerity of awareness and conviction of cause.

"I based most of my opinion on what I read and watched on the news channels along with what I'd been taught in school and studied for myself. And then I got out into the world and actually spent time with those "oppressed people"... If you actually live with them for weeks or sometimes months at a time as I have, I think you'd see a different side of things. "

I think I pretty much answered these suppositions earlier in this response... best not to judge a book by its wear and tear sometimes, I guess.

"I could do the history tracing but frankly I don't have time and the thread has gotten off course through my own fault as much as Gaia's."

I'm not sure how indicative this is of cognitive balance when your entire argument throughout this thread has been the importance of people taking personal responsibility. Replying to the Myanmar case in a subsequent post, this one seems to be running a bit long.

[Rani]

That's one article. From one journalist. Here's another one. From another journalist.

Americans like to think of sanctions as a targeted measure, but restricting Iran's oil imports would distort trade in the whole region, argues Will Ward.

Iran's Achilles heel, goes the mantra of many Washington hawks, is its dependence on imported petrol – the result of underinvestment in its energy industry during three decades of sanctions. While the country is a net oil exporter, Iran's domestic refining capacity lags, forcing the Islamic Republic to import roughly a third of its daily petrol needs from abroad and ration consumer fuel purchases.

The US Congress is currently considering a bill, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which would exploit this weakness by penalising companies and individuals that import petrol into Iran or invest in its domestic oil and gas infrastructure. The rosy logic behind the sanctions bill, which currently enjoys majority support in both houses of Congress, is not new: the hope is that ordinary Iranians, squeezed at the petrol pump, will pressure their recalcitrant leaders to halt uranium enrichment, embrace Israel and stop their unpalatable activities in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region. That, or Tehran will lash out frantically in response, which will lead to an international consensus for even tougher sanctions – or worse.

Opponents of the bill have already pointed out many of its flaws: for starters, Iran could seek investments from Russia and China to build new refineries. Beyond that logistical loophole, it is also the case that Iranians generally support the country's nuclear programme – and even if they didn't, forcing Iran's increasingly authoritarian government to reverse course would require months, if not years, of struggle and bloodshed. Sanctions against oil-producing nations often starve business and civil society, while the continuing flow of oil profits to the state leaves the targeted regimes more, rather than less, powerful – Saddam Hussein's reign in Iraq being the best example.

But even this litany of concerns about the efficacy of sanctions leaves aside a critical issue: the potentially disruptive consequences for the wider region. America, the world's most prolific user of economic sanctions, conceives of them as narrowly directed measures against the target state – the impact on neighbouring states rarely registers in Washington. But sanctions, particularly on consumer products with mass demand like petrol, tend to produce distortions in regional trade dynamics that can have political repercussions. Powerful incentives are generated to meet demand for the sanctioned products, inside and outside of the targeted state, creating economic imbalances in the region and political tensions with the state that has imposed the sanctions. And in the case of petrol sanctions on Iran these consequences are likely to be acute, given the long and storied history of trade relations across the Gulf.

Consider the following thought experiment. Assume the sanctions act is passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama. Let's also assume that, contrary to the loopholes outlined above, US pressure on oil companies and other states does indeed manage to double or treble the price Iran pays for its petrol. What are the regional repercussions?

First, Iran would almost certainly begin industrial scale efforts to import (read: smuggle) petrol from wherever it can; with their high subsidies on petrol, which keep consumer prices artificially low, GCC states will be the most likely targets. The effects might be felt most severely in Oman, where petrol is cheaper than bottled water, and in the UAE; both countries maintain patterns of commerce with Iran that date back centuries. Filling the fuel needs of 65 million Iranians – while taking advantage of subsidies intended for domestic consumers – will stretch GCC government coffers, producing a range of political and economic stresses that could force cuts in social spending or energy investment.

This cross-Gulf smuggling trade will start slowly at first – petrol-filled Coca-Cola bottles thrown into a dhow's shipping crate – but it will quickly become sophisticated and institutionalised. In Iran, financial and political gains will accrue to the most efficient smugglers. American statements have long identified the Revolutionary Guard as key players in sanctions-busting trade in all types of goods, not just those related to Iran's nuclear programme. The paramilitary group has experience in operating aircraft and ships, setting up front companies and other related activities – positioning them to move easily into the petrol trade if sanctions are passed. Since much of the smuggled petrol will be coming across the Gulf, the Guards will seek to secure shipping in the waterway and might try to expand networks inside Gulf States themselves.

If the United States is serious about choking off Iranian petrol imports, it will need to coordinate policy extensively with GCC states to stop this informal cross-Gulf petrol trade. This will prove difficult due to the sheer amounts of money involved, and also because of the trade dynamics that sanctions regimes produce. Recent work by the Harvard University researcher Bryan Early demonstrates that friends of the sanctioning state are in fact more likely to trade in violation of sanctions because of the security afforded by the alliance; in the case of the GCC and Iran, Washington may be reluctant to put too much pressure on its Arab allies to help enforce the sanctions regime, lest it jeopardise its valuable strategic partnerships in the Gulf. Historically, then, the desire to preserve security ties has trumped imperatives of sanctions enforcement. This dynamic could change, of course, but at the cost of strained relations between America and the Gulf States – as well as an increase in internal GCC tensions over Iran between countries like Qatar and Oman, which remain friendly with the Islamic Republic, and those, like Saudi Arabia, which do not.

New sanctions would also accelerate brain drain and capital flight from Iran. The Iranian Rial is dropping precipitously in the face of falling oil production – a trend that can only continue if Iran's energy sector is starved of investment. This could, of course, benefit the UAE – as a hub for trade, services, capital and talent, the Emirates stand to benefit from many types of regional instability, and if implemented, the proposed sanctions make it likely that more Iranians of means will decide to move themselves and their money to Dubai. But the wider consequences remain unpredictable: an exodus across the Gulf could, in fact, bolster the Iranian regime by removing many of its domestic opponents.

It is not clear exactly how the sanctions would be implemented; the current draft legislation seems to provide for financial penalties for individuals and companies, while some critics have described it as a "blockade," giving the implication of military enforcement. Either way, taking material steps to cut off petrol, the lifeblood of a state's economy, is an act of war. States respond to such acts in fundamentally unpredictable ways, but history tells us that wars tend to escalate, last longer and cost more lives than participants expected at the outset.

Proponents of further sanctions against Iran have sometimes couched their arguments in terms of the security of America's Gulf allies, but the GCC states, home to a considerable American military presence, would also become potential targets for Iranian retaliation. Iranian leaders have in the past made direct threats against Gulf States to this effect, while analysts have often contemplated the possibility that Iran will use mines, or small boats, to cut off trade in the Straits of Hormuz, through which 90 per cent of Gulf oil exports travel.

If the worst of these outcomes does not come to pass, a partially successful effort at cutting off Iran's petrol imports and domestic refining capacity could offer limited gains to some specific parties. Qatar, for example, would benefit from Iran's absence as a competitor in world natural gas markets; the UAE could gain from an exodus of Iranian wealth and talent to Dubai, and regional trading families stand to profit from the lucrative trade in black market petrol. But these isolated benefits would accrue to the few at the expense of heightened geopolitical risk for the many. Iran would very likely seek to secure petrol supplies across the Gulf, which would increase the risk of a miscalculation that triggers a disastrous wider conflict.

At present, the US Congress seems determined to lay down a tough line – hoping to maintain a credible threat of "crippling sanctions" if Iran refuses to cooperate. Yet precious little thought seems to have been given to the feasibility of implementing the sanctions or to the costs that such a programme would impose on America's allies in the Gulf. In the worst case, the petrol sanctions – framed as an attempt to avoid war with Iran – might have precisely the opposite effect.

Built to spill


I understand that you might not have the time to dig into the history books right now, but if it's true that there's an equal number of sanctions that has worked it shouldn't be that hard to throw in a couple of examples.

It's not just time that's the factor. We're going down a road that is off from my original question/posting. For every person who says sanctions don't work is another who says they do as you just pointed out. (The journalist I quoted was living under the sanctions in Burma at the time. ) Regardless, the same conflicting opinions are true of every other issue. There will always be consenting/descenting opinions and they will always have "facts" to back them up. We're on different sides of this issue and will continue to be. I'd like to get back to my original posting or drop the entire discussion if it's only going to go in circles with conflicting opions because it's useless. Even though goodness knows I love a good debate. And in my response to Gaia I believe I address those same sanctions which he said didn't work and I have every reason to believe they were effective.

'Rani

[gaia.plateau]

in my response to Gaia I believe I address those same sanctions which he said didn't work and I have every reason to believe they were effective.

For most of them you just argued that they failed because they were not undertaken by the entire world... but in the same post you argued that sanctions undertaken by the whole world cannot work because the UN doesn't have teeth. For the others, I responded to with comparable evidence.

We seem to be in agreement on all the problems and challenges facing international sanctions today... I'm just not as idealistic and/or optimistic about them as you, despite those problems and challenges.

Sanctions work

Nyo Ohn Myint
...

Okay, read the piece... tried to research the journalist, found nothing. Would you contend the assertion that the only claim Myint is making is that "the sanction has sent a message"? If not:

Targeted sanctions restricted to the sale of arms have upsides, but corrupt regimes have never had problems getting weapons under the table. The bottom line, as it currently stands, is a virtually unopposed military dictatorship maintaining oppression and abuse over the Burmese population. I wouldn't call that conclusive of "sanctions working".

If so:

Please help me realize how I misinterpreted the article, and thank you in advance. Edited September 26, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[Rani]

in my response to Gaia I believe I address those same sanctions which he said didn't work and I have every reason to believe they were effective.

For most of them you just argued that they failed because they were not undertaken by the entire world... but in the same post you argued that sanctions undertaken by the whole world cannot work because the UN doesn't have teeth. For the others, I responded to with comparable evidence.

Sanctions work

Nyo Ohn Myint
...

Okay, read the piece... tried to research the journalist, found nothing. Would you contend the assertion that the only claim Myint is making is that "the sanction has sent a message"? If not:

Targeted sanctions restricted to the sale of arms have upsides, but corrupt regimes have never had problems getting weapons under the table. The bottom line, as it currently stands, is a virtually unopposed military dictatorship maintaining oppression and abuse over the Burmese population. I wouldn't call that conclusive of "sanctions working".

If so:

Please help me realize how I misinterpreted the article, and thank you in advance.

Gaia, fine. Since we're always going to be on opposing sides of this argument and with the world itself being split on the subject, and I'd like to get back to my original posting, here you go. I'll bow to you and agree sanctions don't work. Now can we get back to my original posting? How about we take this up if and when the sanctions actually go into place this December?

'Rani

EDIT: Lest that be taken as totally bitchy, one thing I've learned over the years, is that it's not more important to be right. So I'll conceed this one and ask that we get back to the original question. However, I do think we should take it up with Iran the only subject should the sanctions go into place. Fair deal?

[gaia.plateau]

Hey hey, just idle chit chat on a hookah smoking forum it's your thread, if you wanna talk about purple people eaters, I'm game.

Did you read post #13?

[Rani]

Hey hey, just idle chit chat on a hookah smoking forum it's your thread, if you wanna talk about purple people eaters, I'm game.

Did you read post #13?

I think I read them all, but I'll go back through them later and see what I may have missed in the details. To round up that one point, I personally believe sanctions can work, you believe they don't based on history, and I'll concede the floor on that issue. Let's make a deal to put up a thread debating the actual sanctions should they occur and what will/won't cause them to fail and what they need/don't need to make them successful with the least negative impact on the health and well being of the Iranian people. Assuming the superpowers aren't posturing at this point and actually agree to do something.

So to backtrack..........What I find interesting is that there seems to be a flow to events not only in the world but on a person by person basis that I don't know if it can be chalked up to synchronicity or divine intervention, etc. I think we might have the right US president in the "cat birds seat" at the right time to deal with this one issue which brings up the broader issue of what does and doesn't happen for a reason. I'm interested in the overall aspect of what happens and why, etc. Clinton deregulated Wall Street which lead to the basis for this financial meltdown, but perhaps it was a necessary meltdown to focus attention on Wall Street having way too much control over the world economy. Was Bush an ineffective president who was actually effective in the historical perspective of a hundred years from now by not being of strength and mentality to correct Clintons disasterous mistake. The dynamic flow of the necessity of something bad leading to something good and why certain people of certain talent end up in a place at exactly the right time to do...... What they're destined to do for the long term goals of..........? All of that sounds very rambling but I thimk you get where I'm going with the balance and flow of events, people, etc. It's vaguely reminiscent of the TV show "Numb3rs" in which everythng (in the case of the program, crime) is mathematical in orgin and resolution. Make sense?

'Rani

[TheScotsman]

Omambi-pambi said something only because Israel started to force the issue. Want to bet Netanyahu told obambi it was time to act, or they were going to alone? There is no way that is, was, or was ever intended to be a peaceful nuke program. Tell me again, how many gas centrifuges are they running? How many to make a warhead?

Now they are close enough to their goal that all they need to do is stall for a few months, then, just like PRK's programme, we wake up to a nuclear Iran. The IAEA is about as useless as they could be, just another toothless, ball-less bunch of blabbermouths. Iran knows that, hell, the whole world knows that! they proved their effectiveness in the PRK! Now you think their inspection is actually valid, and proof of anything?

France further put Obambi into a corner by siding with Israel against the IAEA, and ElBaradei.

Onubnuts only paid lip service to taking action at this point, and only because Netanyahu, Brown and Sarkozy left him no choice. I would dare bet that is all we see of him on the Iran issue. Every foreign policy so far has been a complete embarrassment, why expect a sudden brilliance on this issue?

What about that closing Guantanamo in a year promise? er, broken! How many is that now? What about that "important" war in assganistan that he supported on the campaign? His great foreign policy is turning the place into another Vietnam at best! and you actually think he has the balls to face Iran down over a militarized nuke program? good grief, you gotta be kidding, right?

[Rani]

Omambi-pambi said something only because Israel started to force the issue. Want to bet Netanyahu told obambi it was time to act, or they were going to alone? There is no way that is, was, or was ever intended to be a peaceful nuke program. Tell me again, how many gas centrifuges are they running? How many to make a warhead?

Now they are close enough to their goal that all they need to do is stall for a few months, then, just like PRK's programme, we wake up to a nuclear Iran. The IAEA is about as useless as they could be, just another toothless, ball-less bunch of blabbermouths. Iran knows that, hell, the whole world knows that! they proved their effectiveness in the PRK! Now you think their inspection is actually valid, and proof of anything?

France further put Obambi into a corner by siding with Israel against the IAEA, and ElBaradei.

Onubnuts only paid lip service to taking action at this point, and only because Netanyahu, Brown and Sarkozy left him no choice. I would dare bet that is all we see of him on the Iran issue. Every foreign policy so far has been a complete embarrassment, why expect a sudden brilliance on this issue?

What about that closing Guantanamo in a year promise? er, broken! How many is that now? What about that "important" war in assganistan that he supported on the campaign? His great foreign policy is turning the place into another Vietnam at best! and you actually think he has the balls to face Iran down over a militarized nuke program? good grief, you gotta be kidding, right?

The problem Scotsman is that because you're so outrageous and blatently anti-Obama that I don't believe anyone can take your complaints seriously anymore. He could turn out to be the true Messiah and you'd campaign for Lucifer just to be on the other side. That's a shame because you might make a dent and be given some credence if you weren't so ridiculously bombastic.

'Rani

[TheScotsman]

Omambi-pambi said something only because Israel started to force the issue. Want to bet Netanyahu told obambi it was time to act, or they were going to alone? There is no way that is, was, or was ever intended to be a peaceful nuke program. Tell me again, how many gas centrifuges are they running? How many to make a warhead?

Now they are close enough to their goal that all they need to do is stall for a few months, then, just like PRK's programme, we wake up to a nuclear Iran. The IAEA is about as useless as they could be, just another toothless, ball-less bunch of blabbermouths. Iran knows that, hell, the whole world knows that! they proved their effectiveness in the PRK! Now you think their inspection is actually valid, and proof of anything?

France further put Obambi into a corner by siding with Israel against the IAEA, and ElBaradei.

Onubnuts only paid lip service to taking action at this point, and only because Netanyahu, Brown and Sarkozy left him no choice. I would dare bet that is all we see of him on the Iran issue. Every foreign policy so far has been a complete embarrassment, why expect a sudden brilliance on this issue?

What about that closing Guantanamo in a year promise? er, broken! How many is that now? What about that "important" war in assganistan that he supported on the campaign? His great foreign policy is turning the place into another Vietnam at best! and you actually think he has the balls to face Iran down over a militarized nuke program? good grief, you gotta be kidding, right?

The problem Scotsman is that because you're so outrageous and blatently anti-Obama that I don't believe anyone can take your complaints seriously anymore. He could turn out to be the true Messiah and you'd campaign for Lucifer just to be on the other side. That's a shame because you might make a dent and be given some credence if you weren't so ridiculously bombastic.

'Rani

Hmmm... you capitalize messiah in that context. Are you inferring a divine attribute? Are you trying to imply that osamabama is the opposite of Lucifer, and therefore an archangel? Or the individual theological opposite, and he is actually the Taxiarch Archangel Michael himself? In any case, one has to think you are overselling obummer in a big way.


No one has to make a dent in obummer... he's doing that all on his own.

[gaia.plateau]

Hmmm... you capitalize messiah in that context. Are you inferring a divine attribute? Are you trying to imply that osamabama is the opposite of Lucifer, and therefore an archangel? Or the individual theological opposite, and he is actually the Taxiarch Archangel Michael himself? In any case, one has to think you are overselling obummer in a big way.


No one has to make a dent in obummer... he's doing that all on his own.

Edited September 27, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[Rani]

Omambi-pambi said something only because Israel started to force the issue. Want to bet Netanyahu told obambi it was time to act, or they were going to alone? There is no way that is, was, or was ever intended to be a peaceful nuke program. Tell me again, how many gas centrifuges are they running? How many to make a warhead?

Now they are close enough to their goal that all they need to do is stall for a few months, then, just like PRK's programme, we wake up to a nuclear Iran. The IAEA is about as useless as they could be, just another toothless, ball-less bunch of blabbermouths. Iran knows that, hell, the whole world knows that! they proved their effectiveness in the PRK! Now you think their inspection is actually valid, and proof of anything?

France further put Obambi into a corner by siding with Israel against the IAEA, and ElBaradei.

Onubnuts only paid lip service to taking action at this point, and only because Netanyahu, Brown and Sarkozy left him no choice. I would dare bet that is all we see of him on the Iran issue. Every foreign policy so far has been a complete embarrassment, why expect a sudden brilliance on this issue?

What about that closing Guantanamo in a year promise? er, broken! How many is that now? What about that "important" war in assganistan that he supported on the campaign? His great foreign policy is turning the place into another Vietnam at best! and you actually think he has the balls to face Iran down over a militarized nuke program? good grief, you gotta be kidding, right?

The problem Scotsman is that because you're so outrageous and blatently anti-Obama that I don't believe anyone can take your complaints seriously anymore. He could turn out to be the true Messiah and you'd campaign for Lucifer just to be on the other side. That's a shame because you might make a dent and be given some credence if you weren't so ridiculously bombastic.

'Rani

Hmmm... you capitalize messiah in that context. Are you inferring a divine attribute? Are you trying to imply that osamabama is the opposite of Lucifer, and therefore an archangel? Or the individual theological opposite, and he is actually the Taxiarch Archangel Michael himself? In any case, one has to think you are overselling obummer in a big way.


No one has to make a dent in obummer... he's doing that all on his own.

Against my better judgement I like you Scotsman. You're good to have around for comic relief. Kinda like Joey Tribiani on Social Security.

'Rani

[TheScotsman]

Omambi-pambi said something only because Israel started to force the issue. Want to bet Netanyahu told obambi it was time to act, or they were going to alone? There is no way that is, was, or was ever intended to be a peaceful nuke program. Tell me again, how many gas centrifuges are they running? How many to make a warhead?

Now they are close enough to their goal that all they need to do is stall for a few months, then, just like PRK's programme, we wake up to a nuclear Iran. The IAEA is about as useless as they could be, just another toothless, ball-less bunch of blabbermouths. Iran knows that, hell, the whole world knows that! they proved their effectiveness in the PRK! Now you think their inspection is actually valid, and proof of anything?

France further put Obambi into a corner by siding with Israel against the IAEA, and ElBaradei.

Onubnuts only paid lip service to taking action at this point, and only because Netanyahu, Brown and Sarkozy left him no choice. I would dare bet that is all we see of him on the Iran issue. Every foreign policy so far has been a complete embarrassment, why expect a sudden brilliance on this issue?

What about that closing Guantanamo in a year promise? er, broken! How many is that now? What about that "important" war in assganistan that he supported on the campaign? His great foreign policy is turning the place into another Vietnam at best! and you actually think he has the balls to face Iran down over a militarized nuke program? good grief, you gotta be kidding, right?

The problem Scotsman is that because you're so outrageous and blatently anti-Obama that I don't believe anyone can take your complaints seriously anymore. He could turn out to be the true Messiah and you'd campaign for Lucifer just to be on the other side. That's a shame because you might make a dent and be given some credence if you weren't so ridiculously bombastic.

'Rani

Hmmm... you capitalize messiah in that context. Are you inferring a divine attribute? Are you trying to imply that osamabama is the opposite of Lucifer, and therefore an archangel? Or the individual theological opposite, and he is actually the Taxiarch Archangel Michael himself? In any case, one has to think you are overselling obummer in a big way.


No one has to make a dent in obummer... he's doing that all on his own.

Against my better judgement I like you Scotsman. You're good to have around for comic relief. Kinda like Joey Tribiani on Social Security.

'Rani

gee, thanks I was afraid someone would take me seriously, and not see the scarcasim. There is hope for you yet

You know, what really made me dislike the current administration, other than the fact I don't like any sort of progressive/socialist agenda, was the sillyness on the part of so many of his supporters. You know the ones I mean, weather you want to admit it or not, the ones that railed against, insulted, and generally acted like asses over anything GW did/said/didn't do... yet when we see the same things happening under NObama, they say nothing. I guess the hypocracy on the part of the left has made me completely dislike, no, disbelieve anything coming from them. This tactic of calling any disagreement with obummer an act of racisim is completely repulsive, and destructive to any message coming from the left.


And back to Iran... nice missile launch today.
anyone that is willing to not take immediate action against a terrorist-nation who owns submarines, and a missile capable of 1K mile range with a nuke payload is not a president that will do anything good for the USA. Or maybe we should just consider the eventual outcome to be "thermobarrically accelerated urban renewal".

[FiveSpeedF150]

This tactic of calling any disagreement with obummer an act of racisim is completely repulsive, and destructive to any message coming from the left.

When you only have one card to play...