Sanctions against Iran

[Dr Grump]

The US needs to leave Iran alone. There are a few chickenhawks on this board who want the country crushed. Going to war against Iraq - bad move, but I could buy it because most of the country hated Saddam. Not so with Iran. Also Iran is full of Shi'ites - there were three different groups in Iraq. Bad move all around. I don't see Iran being expansionist either....so leave them alone. As I said in another thread, the US needs to get over the hostage crisis, which is what this is all about. Ditto Cuba and the sanctions there. The US gets its arse handed to it on a plate and got made a fool of. And we can't have that, can we?

 

[Kalam]

Many Muslims will regard the US as aggressor no matter what the US does, see how the US helped Muslims in Afghanistan against the Soviets and how Afghanistan repaid the US.

We knew that it was done purely for the sake of political expediency; they could just as easily have been Soviet arms used in a fight against a pro-US puppet government. Now that I think about it, that's essentially what's happening today.

You left out a few key events in the middle, anyway. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, Saudi Arabia faced an important decision and fucked up big-time. Instead of accepting an offer of assistance against the invaders from Usama bin Ladin, they chose to call on the West to involve themselves in an affair that wasn't theirs. That single decision shifted bin Ladin's focus westward. What Afghanistan itself has to do with this I'm not sure and was the first in a familiar and disastrous chain of events. Bin Ladin lived in Afghanistan and the United States refused the Taliban's offer to have him arrested, held, and tried. The United States rejected diplomacy entirely and chose war; by resisting, Afghanistan is merely fulfilling its sacred duty. The Taliban were extremely domestically-oriented and harbored no specific enmity toward the United States until their country was invaded and occupied.

 

[Dr Grump]

The Taliban were extremely domestically-oriented and harbored no specific enmity toward the United States until their country was invaded and occupied.

I don't have a problem with the Taliban being gone - different cultural mores, morals etc be damned. They were scum, as is any Islamic fundie...as is any type of religious fundamentalist...

 

[Kalam]

Still many Sunni Muslims do not want Iran to have a nuclear bomb, and if Iran does they will be asking the US to help them get one, even while in typical Muslim fashion, condemning the US at the same time.

I don't want anyone to have nuclear bombs, least of all non-Sunnis, but I won't deny them to Iran while they're held by Israel.

The key here is the US is outside of the Islamic insanity while the one power who can contain, if not control it.

"Islamic insanity" is oxymoronic. All attempts to control Islam from without will be - and have been - met with fierce resistance. You won't succeed.

 

[Kalam]

The Taliban were extremely domestically-oriented and harbored no specific enmity toward the United States until their country was invaded and occupied.

I don't have a problem with the Taliban being gone - different cultural mores, morals etc be damned. They were scum, as is any Islamic fundie...as is any type of religious fundamentalist...

Nor do I, because they elevated tribal customs and affiliations over the rule of God. But removing them was no concern of the United States.

 

[JW Frogen]

Or the US could have said détente is more important, go ahead crush those rag heads.

She did not; she helped Afghanistan and even more astonishingly, afterward left the country alone when the Soviets left. (So much for isolationism.) Most nations would have followed up.

Now I know the Islamic world has a habit of making enemies out of friends if the Koran is not sitting on their kitchen table, so I agree, the US should not have expected gratitude, but now she must learn how to minimize the damage of a cult run wild.

 

[JW Frogen]

Nor do I, because they elevated tribal customs and affiliations over the rule of God. But removing them was no concern of the United States.

And the US was not concerned until the Talaban harbored, protected and supported a group who flew planes into buildings in New York.

You see flying planes into a Superpower's super buildings is probably going to gain their interest in your region.

 

[Kalam]

Or the US could have said détente is more important, go ahead crush those rag heads.

She did not; she helped Afghanistan and even more astonishingly, afterward left the country alone when the Soviets left. (So much for isolationism.) Most nations would have followed up.

I'm sure they would have if the Soviet Union wasn't on the verge of collapse at that point.

Now I know the Islamic world has a habit of making enemies out of friends if the Koran is not sitting on their kitchen table, so I agree, the US should not have expected gratitude, but now she must learn how to minimize the damage of a cult run wild.

If you don't want to be hit, the logical course of action would be to stay out of the way.

 

[JW Frogen]

If some one lends you a hand you don't punch them in the nuts as a thank you card.

 

[Kalam]

Nor do I, because they elevated tribal customs and affiliations over the rule of God. But removing them was no concern of the United States.

And the US was not concerned until the Talaban harbored, protected and supported a group who flew planes into buildings in New York.

You see flying planes into a Superpower's super buildings is probably going to gain their interest in your region.

There's a marked difference between interest and bloodlust. Political and economic designs aside, the US thirsted for Muslim blood after 9/11 and was willing to take what it could get when it became clear that al-Qa'idah's wasn't going to be available. A diplomatic solution, or at least one that didn't involve an invasion and an occupation, could easily have been reached if the US had any desire to take a reasonable approach to the situation.

 

[JW Frogen]

By the way, I am not simply speaking theoretically here; I risked my life to help save Muslims in Bosnia.

They were grateful and did not threaten to kill me for the effort, so I know some of you can get the premise of gratitude.

 

[Kalam]

By the way, I am not simply speaking theoretically here; I risked my life to help save Muslims in Bosnia.

They were grateful and did not threaten to kill me for the effort, so I know some of you can get the premise of gratitude.

I would have offered assistance myself if I had been old enough at the time. I'm sure that the gratefulness went all the way to the top, even though salvation doesn't seem to be your focus. Disbelievers are a funny sort of people. You're a source of unparalleled generosity and unparalleled hardship.

 

[JW Frogen]

Actually, salvation of life was our focus, our total focus at Joint Task Force Provide Promise.

We did not take sides.

This is something the religious zealot may never get, being pre-programed to one side.

We only saved lives.

There are more Muslims alive today because of me and my fellow US servicemen than Osama Bin Ladin can claim, of that I am sure.

I have never killed a Muslim, he has.

 

[Kalam]

Actually, salvation of life was our focus, our total focus at Joint Task Force Provide Promise.

We did not take sides.

This is something the religious zealot may never get, being programed to one side.

We only saved lives.

There are more Muslims alive today because of me and my fellow US servicemen than Osama Bin Ladin can claim, of that I am sure.

I have never killed a Muslim, he has.

Usama isn't on my side. Our similarities end at a shared desire to act as defenders and vanguards of the religion; killing civilians doesn't advance any cause.

 

[JW Frogen]

If the religion is true it will save itself, like with gravity, no vanguard need apply.

 

[ekrem]

I don't think sanctions will work (and probably the Chinese and Russians will never allow any sanctions that bite anyway), the Iranian leadership does not care how much their people suffer, they want a nuclear bomb and the regional hegemony they believe it will grant them.

If they get one there will be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, the Sunni states will not sit back and just suck it up, they will respond in kind.

This is in no one's interest, least of all the Iranian people's interest.

If there is still time to strike by air and knock this program back for a decade, then it is time to strike.

Someone posted here a video from Obama when he was campaigning for president as Senator.
There, he said: Countries like Iran and Venezuela are not a threat to USA.
The Soviets were a threat.
Independently from Obama, every person knows this statement is true just by looking at dry facts like economic size and military capabilities.

As Superpower, the USA has designs and interests for all areas in this world.
Iran, just like Turkey, sits on Top-3/4 geographical assets of this world. Just look at Eurasian map.
East-West transfer off all kinds within Eurasia, depends either on Iran/Turkey route or on Russia in the north.
Historically, East-West transfer has gone through the southern line, hence Silk Road.
From the Northern Line (Russia), historically this route was almost reserved for military campaigns (Huns, Tatar etc.).

By applying sanctions on Iran for decades, this had the result, that an important crosstie on the Eurasian line has been held weak, fragile.
If there had not been sanctions on Iran, maybe today regional integration of some sort would exist.
The USA has no interest in such thing, and it only has interest in such thing, if it controls it via its Trojan horses within.
As an example, the USA would never have had allowed something like the Gulf Cooperation Council to form in such strategic region (oil),
if there would have been any risks this formation would not play by its rule.

After the Shah, Iran did not play by US rule.
As a country sitting on such strategic asset, combined with some potential on its own (history, ressources, population size) the USA could not allow Iran to be a free-agent.
So, the options were:
Either regime-change (invasion) or restricting Iran of integration into the region whereas USA would only have had controll of this process indirectly.

With Iraq invasion, the USA did make a mistake. The outcome is de-facto integration of South-Iraq into Iran.
USA lay a bridge for Iran to swap into its immediate West.
The facts on the ground, thus where we stand today, permits only one summary:
Total strategic failure, nullifying decades-old US policy of containment (Iran).

The mindsets behind Bush, probably thought that time is ripe for transformation of a frozen conflict (Iran) into an advantage for USA in the 21st century against paralell processes emerging from the most eastern part of Asia, which has its own designs westwards.
I don't believe in conspiracy around 11 September, but there is no doubt, that after 11 September the shareholders of US power sat together on a table and the result was not only revenge, but transformation of West-Asia into an advantage decades to last.
Maybe today's US public forgot about US representatives talking about things like "Greater Middle Eastern Project", world does not forget.
World does also not forget about fixing+faking about Iraq in UN Security council by Powell.

After nullifying the decades-old policy of containing Iran, the USA can not deliver the final step of regime-change in Iran.
So, now we head again the road of containment. This time via further rounds of Iran sanctions. Zig-Zag pattern.

I restricted my sentences solely on USA. I do not support any nation supporting non-state actors. Iran surely does, the USA does also. If you are in conflict, every tool becomes an option.
Iran's options are limited, it does not have Star Wars weapons like a superpower is expected to have. At the same time it faces not only containment orchestrated by USA, but the threat of regime change.
It fights for survival of its system. Off course it will cause problems for USA, so that capabilities from USA are tied. The same strategy Russia also has.
Maybe Iran even works on nuclear weapons, who knows? US intelligence is not to be trusted on Iran case, because USA has interests in Iran far exceeding the questions of Nuclear Profileration Treaty.
The artificial threat-assesment of the Iraq invasion shows, that intelligence is flexible, varying with State interests.
Above I talked about that table after 11 September, US intelligence agencies anyway sat on that table.
The USA behaves like every superpower would do.

If they get one there will be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, the Sunni states will not sit back and just suck it up, they will respond in kind.

USA has controll over every Arab Sunnite country. Partly, they even receive US aid. They are the dogs of USA.
An Arab sunnite nation only goes nuclear, if it takes the consequence of breaking with USA.
As such, only Saudi-Arabia has that capability. As a Ressource superpower the Saudis wont even risk a breakup with USA: Foreign trade of Saudi-Arabia is more then 320 Billion $, with investments all over the world.
Sanctioning Saudi-Arabia will trigger economic crisis of some sort. If Saudis want to develop nuclear weapons, they will.
Egypt wont develop anything. They can maybe chew the idea, but not stomach the whole package.
Other Arab Sunnite nations are anyway fly-weights.

Religion has not much weight in International Relations on state-level. There is the superpower and an interest conflict with a more tiny nation, that shows remarkable resistance by utilizing every option it has.
For religious minded people this puts them on the "Axis of Evil". This may only convince those that are receptive to religion. If there are crusader-minded people within your society, that rhetoric will off course be played.
Just like Iran plays the rehtoric of big and little Satan in matters of USA and Israel to those kind of audience within its own country.
It is the conflict of interests that fuel such rhetorics.

The are only 4 options for this region regarding the Iranian situation:
- De-nuclearization (Israel) or
- creating a situation where Iran does not feel threatened by Israeli nuclear weapons and
- motivation for problem-solving between USA and Iran sitting on a table, reaching agreement on Iran's integration into West-Asia. Acknowledgement of the Mullah system. Giving up containment of Iran and by that minimum to medium influence of USA over Iran. Iran still will be free-agent.
- regime change

Those 4 options in today's Middle-Eastern current situation vis-a-vis Israel-Iran-USA.
World and Middle-East changes by itself independently. There is dynamism independent from that triangle.
The only viable and lasting solution is de-nuclearization of Israel. Within US administration this policy has not developed, maybe will never develop.
In the end it does not matter, a multi-polar world is emerging that will be more competent to solve things.
Currently there is only the USA with the ability to get things done, unfortunately, the USA is in alliance with Israel and for some it appers even Judeo-Christian alliance.
So, in some sort the USA has to loose power on global level to get things done in Middle East to a lasting peacefull solution.
Power loss of USA will not happen by USA going down, but other regions clsoing the gap to USA, let's call them the "Others".
Cumulative cooperation of some "The Others" may outpower the USA, while USA still remains Superpower.
My own country develops into something that "gets things done" in its own region.
Our policy is de-nuclearization, for this, we will convince "The Others" and only by that Iran can be convinced.
All other solutions are based on US supremacy, to a less Israelian interest protection.
Those solutions come from a world, which we will soon call "The Past".
Iran by itself has a vast potential, it has 3rd biggest natural gas reserves, yet imports natural gas from Turkmenistan.
It imports gasoline from abroad.
You better hurry with your regime-change agenda whilst you have this "getting things done" capability, otherwise Mullahs will be full and equal partners for the world.

 

[ekrem]

(...)the US should not have expected gratitude, but now she must learn how to minimize the damage of a cult run wild.

You have to adapt to the situation, that USA lost its credibility and standing as a freedom and human issues institutionalizing country regarding its foreign policy.
World has hope in Obama, see Nobel price. Some hope you return into that position, mainly European nations. For the rest, allthough not rhetorically pushing the Superpower, but under the table, you are just an aggressor. And for "Muslim World" you are not seen as an objective problem-solver regarding the Palestinian issue, you are too interconnected to Israelian interest preservation.

Maybe your dis-respectionally called "cult" has run wild, but I doubt.
If 1.X billion people would run wild, world would not exist as we know.
On the other hand, we have plenty audio-visual material pre-2003 of an USA running wild, and an US population re-electing those wild-running Administration.

Now, there is Obama. Hope, change. Maybe for your dometsic politics.
In foreign policy you will stay on confrontation course. Increasingly out of a position to defend. It is not only the hard-power things, but also financial.
Your current position within organizations like IMF, Worldbank and such things will also be attacked.
The US baked crisis for the world, accelareted this process.

BRICs take baby steps toward greater global clout | Reuters