Sanctions – Moon of Alabama

May 23, 2006

Sanctions

Slothrop, on the Ahmadinajad Eats Children thread, writes:

my challenge here is to seriously ask whether iran’s leadership deserves international sanction. if not, why not?

Given that Iran is under official sanctions from the US and under unofficial sanctions from European banks who have business in the US, my question is: "Why?"

Why sanction Iran and not other countries like Saudi Arabia, Brazil or Israel?

Is there any good reason to put these or even further sanctions on Iran at all?

If so, what sanctions do you prefer?

Posted by b on May 23, 2006 at 20:22 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Just a little shot at it.
It seems to me that sanctions in the areas of nonproliferation or regime change have been abysmal failures in the recent past.
Often these sanctions have hurt the most vulnerable sectors of the target country:ie, the childre.
And sanctions don’t work , primarily because of nationalism.
And we’ve seen that forcible regime change doesn’t work too well either.
The sanctimonious hypocritical bullies in the bully pulpit–Bush and Blair–are about out of ideas, and hopefully sermons.

Posted by: Groucho | May 23 2006 21:39 utc | 1

Wasn’t South Africa sanctioned for years? Was it not successful? Or was that all bullshit?

Posted by: gmac | May 23 2006 21:50 utc | 2

As they might say in Tel Aviv; “sanctions smackions” they mean nothing to the elite anyways.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | May 23 2006 22:01 utc | 3

gmac–
Maybe it was. But in South Africa, the government was plainly hostile to most of its citizens, who welcomed outside help in opposing it.
In Iran, people remember vividly the “benefits” of “Westernization” and have no desire at all for renewed outside meddling. It is possible, even likely, that sanctions strengthen the regime. They have certainly put an end to the secular, democratic, in-country opposition.

Posted by: Gaianne | May 23 2006 22:06 utc | 4

Sanctions may work for an intended purpose I guess but why would the world want to support economic sanctions against Iran? They are the second biggest supplier of oil to other nations. I can think of one nation that would be severely effected if Iran and the rest of the world declared economic sanctions against ‘it’.

Posted by: pb | May 23 2006 22:27 utc | 5

I’m aware of the faustian complexity of m.e. crises. the intractable contradiction is the role american and israel militarism plays in advancing the tenuously believable goal of democratization and domination over resources, time, and space.
it’s a tragedy this interminable dialectic of desperate greed and ideology of universal salvation can do nothing but assure interminable suffering and stupidity.
and yet, the threats exist, will continue to exist, both as byproducts of what passes as the u.s. policies of domination and the collosal improbility of solidarity among the region’s indigenes to find a peaceful way through history.
few here can now doubt the need to offer iraqis an option to the surreality of tyranny achieved by saddam. perhaps, there is enough proof the possession of nuclear weapons by a religious zealot in iran should not be permitted. there are other obvious threats.
the molar dimensions of crisis no longer permit the global actors to walk away and watch what happens. it’s much too late for that.
to the extent that the u.s. has options vis-a-vis iran, the use of longterm pressure and militarist and diplomatic “containment” seem remotely plausible. one would wish the democrats would offer a foreign policy devoted to democratization at the demonstrable expense of u.s. m.e. “interests.”
I’m glad I’m not running the show, and I supposde you are too. but, this is where we’re all at. frenchman too.

Posted by: slothrop | May 24 2006 0:36 utc | 6

and maybe it’s a good thing the world’s ass is against the wall of history, without the possibility of ingenuous detour or hocus pocus.

Posted by: slothrop | May 24 2006 0:41 utc | 7

perhaps a good time as any to see “the bare lies shine through” as the venerable bill burroughs says.

Posted by: slothrop | May 24 2006 1:00 utc | 8

one would wish the democrats would offer a foreign policy devoted to democratization at the demonstrable expense of u.s. m.e. “interests.”
Why Sloth, it appears you might have overdosed on the democratization punch.
This might turn out to be a very pregnant discussion.

Posted by: Groucho | May 24 2006 1:02 utc | 9

those interests are considerable: support of zionism, energy exploitation, “full spectrum dominance.” it means to demonstrate to the region’s people enormous sacrifice for years of humiliating u.s. policy.
like I say, there are no other options besides immoral commitment to domination, which as I mentioned elsewhere, is a possibility given the means of violence available to the u.s.

Posted by: slothrop | May 24 2006 1:17 utc | 10

Probably the best solution to matters of diplomatic recognition is one that the British formulated in the early nineteenth century: If a government comes to power, it should be recognized, in the absence of overwelming popular opposition, within the country, against it. This looks like a pretty good model, to me, for present times. And admittedly, the British and other “Great Powers” who adopted the British model, only did so in areas that were not strategically important to them.
The US is really a neophyte in managing the locals in strategic areas, as far as it goes. Should have studied the British and French 19th century playbooks much more carefully.
The idea of democracy now as a panacea for past injustices in countries that have never experienced anything but tribal, dictatorial, theocratic, or colonial rule, is an interesting but very dangerous concept.
Be careful what you wish for.
Will write more tomorrow.

Posted by: Groucho | May 24 2006 2:10 utc | 11

few here can now doubt the need to offer iraqis an option to the surreality of tyranny achieved by saddam.
But there was no “offer”. There were massive sanctions that killed some hundred-thousands, than there was war and now civil war. Another 100,000+ dead and over two million fleeing.
Don´t tell me Iraqis are “better off now”, other than Chalabi that is.
there is enough proof the possession of nuclear weapons by a religious zealot in iran should not be permitted
What kind of “proof” is there? I don´t want Iran to have a nuclear arsenal, but what is it about those religious nuts in Pakistan, Israel and endtimers like Bush?

Posted by: b | May 24 2006 3:06 utc | 12

would economic sanctions against the united states provide the stimulus for an authentic democratic movement/revolution, one result of which would be regime change, another of which would actually be a democratic form of governance? or would sanctions on the united states contribute to strengthening the reliance upon the existing framework, no matter how detrimental that system is to its subjects? and what arguments could one make that the united states is not deserving of international sanctions?

Posted by: b real | May 24 2006 3:20 utc | 13

Iran Requests Direct Talks on Nuclear Program

Iran has followed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent letter to President Bush with explicit requests for direct talks on its nuclear program, according to U.S. officials, Iranian analysts and foreign diplomats.
…
Laylaz and several diplomats said senior Iranian officials have asked a multitude of intermediaries to pass word to Washington making clear their appetite for direct talks. He said Ali Larijani, chairman of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, passed that message to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, who arrived in Washington Tuesday for talks with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley.
Iranian officials made similar requests through Indonesia, Kuwait and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, Laylaz said. American intelligence analysts also say Larijani’s urgent requests for meetings with senior officials in France and Germany appear to be part of a bid for dialogue with Washington.
…The administration repeatedly has rejected talks, saying Iran must negotiate with the three European powers that have led nuclear diplomacy since the Iranian nuclear program emerged from the shadows in 2002. Within hours of receiving Ahmadinejad’s letter, Rice dismissed it as containing nothing new.
But U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said government experts have exerted mounting pressure on the Bush administration to reply to the letter, seconding public urgings from commentators and former officials. “The content was wacky and, from an American point of view, offensive. But why should we cede the high moral ground, and why shouldn’t we at least respond to the Iranian people?” said an official who has been pushing for a public response.

Posted by: b | May 24 2006 4:09 utc | 14

latest RightWeb analysis of “Iran Freedom and Regime Change Politics,” by Tom Barry
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3277

On April 27 the House of Representatives passed the Iran Freedom Support Act by a vote of 397 to 21. The bill tightens sanctions imposed on Iran under the Iran Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) of 1996 and tightens sanctions on companies that invest in the country’s energy industries. The bill would make U.S. sanctions against Iran under ILSA permanent unless there is a change of government in Iran.
Sponsored by Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Tom Lantos (D-CA), the bill authorizes the president “to provide financial and political assistance to foreign and domestic individuals, organizations, and entities that support democracy and the promotion of democracy in Iran.” The Senate version of the bill, S. 333, sponsored by Sens. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Evan Bayh (D-IN), currently has 58 co-sponsors.
Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who opposed the bill, argued: “While this bill makes a point of so-called not using force against Iran, be assured this is a stepping stone to the use of force, the same way that the Iraq Liberation Act was used as a stepping stone.”

lots of background links regarding groups and individuals involved.
OT:
“Former U.S. Navy Senior Council Says Bush Administration Open To War Crime Charges”
Alberto Mora, in his first broadcast interview.
BBC Newsnight 05/22/06
Mora given “Profile in Courage” award monday.

Posted by: manonfyre | May 24 2006 5:11 utc | 15

Historically, what is the argument for sanctions being a viable mechanism for change? What are sanctions’ success stories? Or are they simply attempts by the powerful to punish the weak for daring to disagree, without resorting to war?

Posted by: Rowan | May 24 2006 6:14 utc | 16

Maybe someone would like to E-mail Ahmadinajad and ask him a few questions, who knows maybe we’ll get to have a dialogue with the President of Iran. Bush sure the hell isn’t interested in it.
via.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 24 2006 9:04 utc | 17

.. wrong thread
like did sez ..

Posted by: DM | May 24 2006 10:00 utc | 18

A lot of comments seem to be saying sanctions won’t work. This is probably true, but isn’t answering the question of what justifies sanctions in the first place – whether they are effective or not. The main reason being touted by the war-hawks is Iran’s nuclear program. Correct me if I am wrong, but Iran is not operating outside the limits of what it is entitled to under the NPT. Breaches to date have been effectively technical. When Iran declares that it has the right to enrichment technology it is simply stating fact. If people do not like what Iran is doing, then they should be agitating to alter the treaty for everybody – not just for Iran. That would at least be consistent and might be useful in the long term. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the US to suggest strengthening an international treaty.

Posted by: det | May 24 2006 12:10 utc | 19

det is right – Iran is not in material breach of the NPT, it does have the right to enrich, and it has also threatened to leave the treaty if the bullying doesn’t stop, which would leave us all precisely nowhere.
But as the US is currently happy to be driving a horse and cart through the NPT in any case (in respect of its recent deal on nuke tech with India, which has not even signed the NPT), it would seem that a US goal in any case is to destroy the NPT by heaping upon it more contradictions than any one international agreement can stand.
The US doesn’t have a particularly good track record on its own international legal obligations right now – Geneva Conventions – and refuses to take a lead on important considerations like International Criminal Court, Kyoto.
I’m sorry, slothrop, but I find the current US administration a hell of a lot more scary than that in Iran.

Posted by: Dismal Science | May 24 2006 12:58 utc | 20

very interesting. such an impasse. is our shit excuse for a president willing to cross it?
the profusion of overtures by iran suggests the extent both u.s. and iran interests are fused by the disaster in iraq.

Posted by: slothrop | May 24 2006 15:24 utc | 21

oh. b already posted the link to the post article. thanx.

Posted by: slothrop | May 24 2006 15:26 utc | 22

b real
sure.
but what’s the pragmatic response to such power?
the pursuit of domination by the u.s., britain, france in the m.e. has a century’s worth of mistakes made to the detriment of the region’s people. we can’t undue such mistakes by intellectual insouciance and cynicism. I’m aware the moral dissolution of american power is, after dresden and hisoshima, thorough. however, just as this same power has been the cause of accumulating threats to its existence, this same power is the only available solution to the problems it has created. this is obvious.
the moral content of the uses of this power arises only when the forces of destruction are employed by a leadership courageous enough to sacrifice “our way of life” and the ephemeral pleasures of domination to the pursuit of what was once not ironically called “perpetual peace. to “leave” is no option for us now, in any case.

Posted by: slothrop | May 24 2006 15:58 utc | 23

just as this same power has been the cause of accumulating threats to its existence, this same power is the only available solution to the problems it has created. this is obvious.
This is in no way obvious to me. The butcher is the only guy who can put the slaughtered pig together again?
Fallujah can be rebuild, but not by McDonalds or Halliburton.
to “leave” is no option for us now, in any case.
Why not?

Posted by: b | May 24 2006 16:29 utc | 24

The ‘world’ supported sanctions against Iraq for many years.
It was terribly destructive.
Fossil fuel reserves worth fighting for are held by Saudi, Iraq and Iran.
In a minor key by Venezuela, and Russia (natural gas.)
The US is the first military power. It can nuke the whole world.
Where are the complications?
Who cares about ‘regime change’ in Iran? Nobody. Not really. Let the Iranians do their thing. Who cares if mineral water costs more than gas? If girls can’t wear glitter eye-liner? If cars cost double that in the US? If there is trouble about the audience for soccer games? What a lot of hypocrisy, mealy mouthed platitudes, objecting to that. (Not adressed to the members of this board.)
What will sanctions accomplish?
Nothing, A. the Iranian president pointed out quite carefully the West needs Iran more that Iran needs the West. He is right.
Nukulear? Huh? The US is giving and selling nuclear technology to its allies (India, Pakistan, Israel..) they thrashed the non-proliferation treaties, the UN sits around bemused, like scared rabbits facing headlights, and people get their knickers in a twist because Iran might actually eventually enrich urnaium?

Posted by: Noisette | May 24 2006 17:37 utc | 25

we can’t undue such mistakes by intellectual insouciance and cynicism.
that’s the crux: we cannot undue the mistakes of the past. we can only struggle to ensure that such mistakes aren’t made again and that, where appropriate, restitution and the return of sovereignty be provided. sanctions are a leverage of power, employed solely for the benefit of the sanctioner. people do not even figure into the equation, as joy gordon & others have so starkly pointed out wrt the sanctions imposed on iraq. even the santioner, in that case, ignored their own restrictions when it got in the way of profiteering & strategic ploys. santions cannot bring about any meaningful impetus for structural reform in iran. in this situation, they send a message that we have the power to f*ck w/ iran bigtime, they divert attention from the united states’ very real & dangerous disregard of the NPT by creating a false dilemma – gee, maybe iran intends to use nukes against the u.s. someday. intends. why not look deeply into the intent of the sanctioner? this rhetoric of the u.s. bringing democracy – even in their own implied definition of opening new mkts to their pretend free market economics – anywhere is a farce. what they intend to bring will benefit no living thing. so, in light of the current state of the global powers, the only sanctions i can endorse are those which enforce legitimate punishment for blatant, well-documented, ongoing breaches of international law. not intended breaches. not for vilification. not for leverage by an unmoral superpower that does not know the first thing of oaths & promises.

Posted by: b real | May 24 2006 21:30 utc | 26

This is in no way obvious to me. The butcher is the only guy who can put the slaughtered pig together again?
well put. but my point is about the distinction of u.s. power, which is considerable, and the deployment of these prevailing means of power to redress the prolix damage inflicted on the people of the region. I’m merely trying to point out the same means must be used to achieve peace. as marx said: “[I]f we did not find concealed in society as it is the material conditions of
production and the corresponding relations of exchange prerequisite for a classless society, then all attempts to explode it would be quixotic.” this thesis is supported in the case of u.s. militarism by certainty the retreatr of u.s. power from the region would create even more chaos and murder. I believe so; you do not. it is unlikely, however, your hypothesis will ever be tested.
but, I’m in complete agreement w/ you, the apalling tragedy is the use of u.s. power, even guided by our democrats, will be one of domination and deceit.
in all of this, I’ve wanted to find a realistic way in which the great mistakes made u.s. could be undone.

Posted by: slothrop | May 24 2006 22:03 utc | 27

b real
what I’ve tried to say is the point at which the u.s. can “stop doing that” is no longer available. bush has made certain of that.

Posted by: slothrop | May 24 2006 22:08 utc | 28

slothrop
you have forgotten two adages of my youth which remain pertinant
the first : u s imperialism is a paper tiger – the absolute incompetence & abscence of a ‘real’ plan evidence the emptiness of power in very concrete terms. you continue to overestimate the power of the empire
it seems you have also forgotten the other adage : it is right to rebel /dare to struggle dare to win
through all my darkness i basically believe the people & the people alone are the motive force behind history & in time they will decide
(o t – i thought tariq aziz in his silent way made a mockery of the puppet tribunal in iraq today)

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 24 2006 23:27 utc | 29

you continue to overestimate the power of the empire.
Exactly.
Check out THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING HEGEMON

Posted by: Groucho | May 24 2006 23:51 utc | 30

groucho
a useful article

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 25 2006 1:37 utc | 31

China and India are both currently developing their respective domestic nuclear programs (both building about 20 new reactors), the UK is about to revive its domestic nuclear program – why should Iran be denied the same?
And in respect of weaponization, the US refuses to disclose to its own citizens the extent of its nuclear capabilities.
Plus:
*Iran has not invaded Canada and established 14 permanent bases there, and an embassy staffed by 3,000 Iranians;
*Iran is not part of a NATO/UN force currently fighting in Mexico.
*Iran has not threatened the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against the US because it does not have them.
But the facts on the ground are that:
*US forces have illegally invaded Iraq, on the border of Iran;
*US forces have been fighting in Afghanistan for several years now, a country that is also right on the border of Iran;
*Since 2002 the US administration has arrogated to itself the right to use first-strike nuclear weapons against seven countries, including Iran, as part of its official military policy.
So in answer to the question of international sanctions on Iran, no.

Posted by: Dismal Science | May 25 2006 14:44 utc | 32

Alternatively,
How much oil does Iran really have, if it is pushing nuclear energy production?
If you follow “peak oil” [diminishing longterm energy supply], the nuke industry is posing as an energy crisis savior for the US market. Why wouldn’t other countries switch to more nuclear energy also?

Posted by: gylangirl | May 25 2006 15:20 utc | 33

Back to Main