Discussion in 'Congress' started by toomuchtime_, Jan 28, 2010.
Not a good idea IMO.
What happens? Less gas available for the people of Iran. Less gas, prices go up. And the people will be mad at us for causing them financial hardship. We need them to know we're with them if they're ever going to overthrow the religious nutjobs who run their country, and there is serious discontent among the population now against those clowns. We should do whatever we can to foment such unrest rather than getting them pissed at us. Their government's only going to tell them it's the fault of the U.S., and for once they'll be telling them the truth.
Depends on your angle.
[/QUOTE] Less gas, prices go up. [/QUOTE]
Hurray for Exxon !
[/QUOTE] And the people will be mad at us for causing them financial hardship. [/QUOTE]
Getting them riled up so they'll approve of their nation doing something stupid and getting into a war.
Sound familiar ?
From a strategic point of view, our priority is to stop Iran's nuclear weapons programs, and there is no reason to believe the opposition, nearly all of whom still believe in the Khomeini revolution, would be any less committed to acquiring nuclear weapons than the current government. Sanctions mean economic sanctions and the only way they can possibly be successful in ending Iran's nuclear weapons programs is if they damage the Iranian economy so badly that the government cannot adequately provide for the people's needs and pursue their weapons programs at the same time.
Of course, sanctions may not work for a variety of reasons, but we have only three options: allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and delivery systems for them, apply economic sanctions severe enough to make it impossible for Iran to continue to pay for its weapons programs or take direct military action. Imo, time allowing, severe, even crippling, economic sanctions should be tried before turning to either of the other two options.
We are talking about a nation with a very large oil supply. Is this really the best way to sanction them?
Iran has a lot of oil, but not much refining capacity, so it is forced to import about 40% of its gasoline. The bill allows the President to impose sanctions not only on companies, foreign and domestic, that sell gasoline to Iran but also on companies that help Iran to increase its refining capacity. In addition, it lays sanctions on companies that help Iran to transport oil for exports by building pipelines or providing tankers. It also allows the President to impose sanctions on companies that sell US technology to Iran even second, third, fourth, etc., hand.
Merkel is already pressuring German companies to stop doing business with Iran - Siemens announced a few days ago it would stop selling anything to Iran - and it is likely that if the US imposes stiff sanctions, France and the UK will join us. That would effectively mean that companies that sold almost anything to Iran other than food or medicine would not be able to do business in Europe or the US. That would likely even give Chinese companies pause.
If economic sanctions would deter Iran from seeking to acquiring nuclear weapons, this set of sanctions should do the trick, but will Obama and our European allies actually impose them? If they did, would Iran back down or go the route of North Korea and allow its people to suffer rather than give up its quest for nuclear weapons? At the end of the day, I think we will either have to use determined military force or give up on non proliferation, however, it would be unthinkable to use military force without first giving serious sanctions a try.
Separate names with a comma.