Much of the media analysis of Iran at the moment dwells on the punitive economic sanctions targeting Iran’s economy. An additional round of more restrictive sanctions took effect at the beginning of this month, drawing renewed attention from the press.
The clear message from that media coverage is this: If Iran were to come clean about its nuclear program, they could get relief from the sanctions that are starting to wreak serious havoc on the country’s economy.
That is one of the primary assumptions in the coverage of the Iran crisis. But is it correct?
Mostly not.
Here’s the New York Times (6/30/12):
U.S. Bets New Oil Sanctions Will Change Iran’s Tune
By ANNIE LOWREY and DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON — After three and a half years of attempting to halt Iran’s nuclear program with diplomacy, sanctions and sabotage, the Obama administration and its allies are imposing sweeping new sanctions that are meant to cut the country off from the global oil market. Many experts regard it as the best hope for forcing Iran to change its course.
On Sunday, the European Union is putting in place a complete embargo of oil imports from Iran, which was the Continent’s sixth-biggest supplier of crude in 2011.
The piece goes on:
Still, President Obama and his European allies–with little help from the Chinese, who actually increased their purchases of Iranian crude in May–are placing a bet that another big turn of the economic screws may change Iran’s attitude.
“It is our assessment that the Iranians have not experienced deep enough sanctions, long enough to fully understand what their isolation means,” a senior administration official closely involved in strategy said Friday in an interview.
The Washington Post had a piece, headlined (6/30/12) “Amid Standoff, More Sanctions for Iran,” that included this:
“In short, sanctions are having a major adverse impact on Iran’s economy, and things will only go from bad to worse unless Iran gets serious about addressing the international community’s concerns about its nuclear program,” said a senior administration official, who insisted on anonymity in discussing U.S. strategy on Iran.
But U.S. officials and Iran experts are divided on whether any amount of economic pain will yield concessions from Iran at the negotiating table. Iranian officials, during three rounds of talks with world powers this spring, rebuffed proposals to curtail production of enriched uranium in exchange for gradual relief from sanctions.
Amidst the creepy taunts from (predictably anonymous) U.S. officials, the message is clear: Iran must budge first, and then maybe they’ll get what they want.
But is that possible? Not necessarily. Take the sanctions levied by the United States, for instance. As Scott Peterson noted in the Christian Science Monitor (5/10/12):
In the U.S., the power to adjust American sanctions resides not with President Barack Obama but with Congress, which has voiced a hawkish stance on Iran in a U.S. election year.
Yousaf Butt of the Federation of American Scientists argued (Christian Science Monitor, 5/25/12) that most of the U.S. sanctions could be removed only if Congress chose to do so, and only after the president certified that
the government of Iran has ceased supporting acts of international terrorism and no longer satisfies certain requirements for designation as a state sponsor of terrorism; and [that] Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of nuclear, biological, chemical and ballistic weapons.
The likelihood of both of those things happening anytime soon is obviously incredibly slim. So from Iran’s perspective, the U.S. sanctions are in place no matter what.
That would lend credence to the argument that the sanctions policy has basically nothing to do with a nuclear program. As Butt argued in his op-ed, “A careful reading of the legislative text of the sanctions shows that the sanctions have very little to do with Iran’s nuclear program and everything to do with regime change.”
And some sanctions proponents are at least honest about this fact. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof recently wrote a column (6/16/12) endorsing sanctions primarily as a means to change the Iranian government by causing hardship for the Iranian population. “I regret this suffering,” Kristof wrote, “and let’s be clear that sanctions are hurting ordinary Iranians more than senior officials.”
Nonetheless, he added:
Yet, with apologies to the many wonderful Iranians who showered me with hospitality, I favor sanctions because I don’t see any other way to pressure the regime on the nuclear issue or ease its grip on power. My takeaway is that sanctions are working pretty well.
This success makes talk of a military strike on Iranian nuclear sites unwise as well as irresponsible. Aside from the human toll, war would create a nationalist backlash that would cement this regime in place for years to come–just when economic sanctions are increasingly posing a challenge to its survival. No one can predict the timing, but Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen have shown that unpopular regimes that cannot last, don’t.
“People putting bread on the table, bearing the pressure, they have a limit,” said a businessman I chatted with on a beach of the Caspian Sea. “Sooner or later, the limit will come and things will change.”
Insha’Allah. (God willing.)
Kristof is careful to talk about the Iranian nuclear program, but it’s pretty clear that he sees the sanctions as the best hope for creating a different government in Iran. It would appear to be a more honest assessment of the sanctions than one is likely to get in straight news articles.
Kristof’s theme song would seem to be “Cruel to Be Kind”.
Aside from the moral turpitude, wouldn’t his argument that a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities also apply to sanctions? Despite his cherry picked remark from the “businessman”, do most Iranians blame the hardships caused by them on their government, or on Western designs on the nation’s oil?
They only have to look next door.
And that “unpopular regime” in Egypt hasn’t gone anywhere, due in no small part to the actions of those Kristof lauds as agents of democratic change in Iran.
But if such contradictions concerned him, he wouldn’t be where he is today, would he?
Nukes are no issue vis-a-vis Iran like WMD were no issue for Iraq. The issue is Iran resiliently does its own thing. USA and West in general need a slave client state. The need for more sanctions is proof of dismal failure of their policies. Western media is a journalistic failure taking sides and making wishes rather than objective reporting.
Except for client kings, emirs and appointed presidents, USA is slipping and so is EU while UK is history. Eqypt and Yemen are cases in point.. USA has almost lost a friendly ally Pakistan due its anti-human drones policy and bullying. India only wishes to use USA as suits it. China is the rising star joined by Russia.
Use of U.S. Dollar as currency of trade is declining. Bilateral regional currency based trade including for oil is on rise. Soon the Dollar will loose its global status. Euro based areas are in trouble already. The beginning of the end of a world dominated by Breton Woods sisters is very much in sight. Thank you for the sanctions. They pinch us short term but help us in the long run.
I keep asking this question hoping someone would answer it: and why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons?
@ FreeSpirit: Bravo! Many Americans are evidently unable to imagine how citizens of other countries might feel about not being in the nuclear club. Our official position has always been: “We got lots of them and will detonate them whenever and wherever we damn well happen to feel like it, but, of course, you can’t have any and you’d better just shut up about it.” Don’t ask me why the U.N. tolerates this utter absurdity or why the media never mention it.
It’s a dangerous world when a handful of powerful Eurocentric nations can collude and cut off most other nations on the planet from food, capital, technologly, or communications whenever they wish. I still remember the long, drawn out “debate” over whether half-hearted sanctions against the White settler states of southern Africa would, or would not “hurt Blacks more.” As if those White Westerners who had supported places such as Rhodesia or South Africa for decades were genuinely concerned about the well being of Black Africans. No such “debate” has occurred about sanctions against Iraq or Iran. The West’s sanctions policies are always hypocritical and always have holes in them which allow them either to play favorites, or to avoid conflict with countries which they cannot bully into complience. Both China and Singapore are have been exempted from having to participate in the embargo against imported Iranian oil, while other states with less power will be penalized for doing so. The more one sees the so-called international community in action, the less impressed one becomes with the ways it works to impose its version of “justice” on humanity.
I haven’t seen any comment from anyone pertaining to fall out from any nuclear bombs, or spreading radiation from the destruction of Iranian facilities. Nor has there really been any about the death toll from such misadventures. It seems that the U.S./Western nations are the danger, not just to the immediate surroundings, but to the people, the innocent ones. The costs to build and service the War Machine has been enormous, with no positive returns, save for the stockholders of the manufactures. What are the Generals going to do when the money runs out?
Sanctions on Iran are a cruel act initiated by Israel, which as usual gets full support from the U.S., no matter how foul the action. If we allow Israel to suck us into conflict with Iran, it will open the doors to destruction here unlike any we’ve known. Iranian children die from the sanctions. Israeli children I fear will die from justified retaliation for the sanctions. We must stop this by ending the Iran sanctions and by removing all aid to Israel. – George Beres
Nick kristof is a prime example of how the corporate media and the Right have framed the public discourse to their advantage. With “liberals” like kristof who needs conservatives. Kristof is a convenient “liberal” stand -in that effectively marginalizes any real critical inquiry into sanctions in the first place. SO it’s okay if Iranian citizens are hurt by the sanctions as long as Kristof “loves them” . he’s so ()*&&*%%^# noble isn’t he?
If the actual purpose of the American sanctions is to cause a regime change in Iran, then does that not mean that America is actually attacking the sovereignty of Iran with said sanctions? It seems to me that the sanctions themselves are actually an act of war, and to me, I truly think that would justify a parallel response from Iran.
While even the US Secretary of Defence has stated — for the record — that Iran has no intention of developing nuclear weapons, America, and the UN continue on with this senseless attack on Iran, and just like with any war, the innocent bystanders are the ones who are suffering. The fact of the matter is that if the US, Israel and UN removed their sanctions from Iran, that would take away the justification for Iran to retaliate, and since their constitution demands “No First Strikes”, that would effectively eliminate 90% of the perceived (imagined) threat that Iran poses.
But so long as these financial attacks continue on Iran, they are justified in doing nearly anything, and that alone makes them dangerous.
This can be so confusing, sort of like Abbott and Costello and “Who’s on first.”
So Iran needs to stop being a state sponsor of terrorism…except where are they doing that? Have they attacked anyone recently, or bombed weddings, funerals , children etc. etc.? How many bases do they have all over the world? How many other nations have Iranian troops on the ground? None? Developing weapons of mass destruction? Aren’t we doing all of that? When does that “Do unto others,” kick in? “Spreading democracy” is getting a little creepy, and I would like to see some of that democracy and see how it could work here.
Sanction will not,and have not worked.This is a leadership bent on obtaining the bomb.They will to the last man in that leadership die, and extend any suffering to their people to obtain that bomb,and delivery systems.When you realize that you will see the tough nut this really is for Obama,the Israeli’s,and the world.
This week Iran renewed its “wipe Israel from the map”talk that libs here constantly say they never say.Or never mean.FAIR missed that oops
Look this whole problem is easy to defuse.There is not a reason in the world for an oil rich nation to be enriching uranium to the level that is good for only one thing…..weaponization.Now why liberals here yell at us and the Japanese as to expanding our nuclear reactor programs, they are ready to chain themselves to Iranian nuclear plants to save them from attack.Hypocritical?You bettya!Look you lot of college puddins…They are building a bomb.They are lying to you.Just like that hot blond that told you she had to study Friday night in college-and you saw her drive by with the school quarterback.Stop being dupes.YOUR president,and YOUR secretary of state can read the tea leaves.Everyone but you.
Gloriana
Please please read some of the books out now.Books on the inside history of what has been going on in Iran.Through the Shaw, and into the black death- crows that now sit in power.Your eyes will be opened as to what it is we are dealing with.They are innocent only in regard to the very real limitations that they have(militarily) to spread their murderous philosophy and Faith around the globe.They would laugh at how naive you are.Calling them sheep.Sheep?Their leadership council believes everyone should be killed who poses dissent or threat.They worry not one bit if they are innocent or not.Komini was fond of saying he was sending them as martyrs on to paradise -innocent or not.So he had no worries as the firing squads plowed into their bloody work. Hey Ya gotta love a simple man.How much mercy do you really think they would have on jews when they have none for their own people?Read about them.
this dude michael e is a looney! anyway what i really want to say is that when i think about the iran situation i think about cuba. the u.s can’t stand for any nation to defy its will. i suggest that the progressive community should mount a campaign against iran sanctions as part of our push against israeli crimes against the palestinians. i’m certainly not ignorant about the nature of the iranian government but i’m more concerned about the nature of the american government which is 100 times more murderous.
Ajumu you just compared America to Iran.And America came out the looser by a country mile in your eyes.Yeah and Im the loon!
As I recall the only time sanctions really worked was in South Africa and it took a long time to do so and many groups boycotting companies on their own to do so against the US govt’s wishes—at first. It is really called “soft war” and it can kill and it can weaken. But Iran is going to be many orders of magnitude harder to crack than Iraq was.
Starting a war is sheerest folly. It would lead to a global Great Depression, war far would break out if not in the USA then allies and supporters. Israel will have to use nuclear weapons even though the risk of prevailing winds sending irradiated debris and dust back to them will be great. (Unless they use neutron warheads. The only problem then will be the EMP’s. It will be considered a war crime and atrocity by everyone but the leadership in Israel and the GOP here. It would be a huge disaster that could wreck much of civilization either just economically or from weapons or both. A nightmare that should never happen.
@m.e.: Incoherent, as usual. And, ajumu simply stated the facts. @Dana: Nick Kristof is not a liberal. In the Beltway he might utter things considered by fellow Beltwayers as liberal, but that’s about it. Your point is well-taken, though: With liberals like President Obama, who needs right-wing sabre-rattlers anymore?
All this nonsense about sanctions having any desired effect on Iran is just laughable. They aren’t, and they never will. Despite the way the MSM likes to portray Iran’s leaders, they are actually very smart and very shrewd, and they will not be bullied into handing over their political leverage (potential creation of nuclear weapons) to the US without getting something significant in return (to which the US will never agree). So, we are at a stalemate once again. The US just needs to move on from this exercise in futility to more important matters like preventing the financial sector from taking over the world.
The sanctions are not at all about Iran’s nuclear program, and Iran’s nuclear program is not at all about weapons. The situation is that Iran is losing money sending out its crude to be refined (its own refineries are virtually useless), then reimporting it at a loss, then subsidizing it to make it affordable to its citizens. The US was very happy to give the Shah nuclear energy technology in exchange for access to Iran’s plentiful oil fields. The Iranian Revolution shut off that access and we, as well as Dick Cheney, have never forgiven it. This is about keeping Iranian oil out of the market, where it can affect the price (heaven forbid that speculators not be able to manipulate that!), and continuing to choke the Iranian economy – after all, we all know what wealth does to a country – increases its power and influence. Fine for us, but not for Iran. What makes me angry is that after Obama told the Bush administration and the Republicans to quit scaring the American people, he allows us to believe that Iran is secretly building a nuclear weapon (it isn’t), keeping up the pretense that this is about preventing nuclear weapons development. But this little game is about controlling the price of oil (more saber-rattling = higher oil prices = Wall St. laughs all the way to the bank). Keeping the nuke story alive keeps the American people awash in propaganda, afraid, distracted, and vilifyng a country that’s mostly trying to improve its economy. The US wants a “friendly” regime – one that gives us access to the oil again. If we were really concerned about nuclear weapons in the Middle East, we would instead be paying more attention to: 1. Israel, 2. Pakistan.
Susan your understanding of the Iranian leadership and their motivations are predicated on the assumption that they are sane.I think insanity may not run in the Iranian rulers leadership councils……but it sure as hell gallops!
“Susan (comma) your understanding of the Iranian leadership and their (its) motivations are (is) predicated on the assumption that they are (it is) sane. (space) I think insanity may not run in the Iranian rulers (ruler’s) leadership councils…… (comma) but it sure as hell gallops!”
Insanity may not run in Iranian leadership councils but it gallops? What does that mean, michael e? What are you talking about?
John Q it is very hard to deal with people who’s motivations are not based on a sane view of the world.I believe Hitler was that person.North Korean leadership.Iran.There are others, but do you argue the point Im making?I see them as insane.Ah ma needs a job seems as crazy as a shit house rat.
A rational person could easily see a form of endemic insanity among most of the leaders of the Western powers. Any group of people who believe, as most of them do, that they, and they alone know what’s best for people in countries which are as diverse as China, Haiti, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, etc.,etc.,etc., and that they, and they alone have some inherent right or entitlement to pass judgement on all other societies, and to intervene and to attempt to impose changes on them on their terms, is every bit as “crazy” as any Islamic fundamentalist or any totalitarian leader who hides a system of oppression behind a cult of personality.
Pleasehead Im not going to poo poo away what you just wrote.Because there is some(some I say)truth in what you say.but the comparison is in the end apples and oranges.I do not believe for instance that we fought WW2 to keep ,or create, our place in the world as head honcho(.Although that was an understanding Im sure.)Your belief that we do NOTHING for those amazing aspirations that were hammered out by our founding fathers.Aspirations that have led to greater freedoms for us and the world over…I think are a bit over the top.You seem to think it has never had any relevance.Or was never any different at its core ,than any despot who means to change the world toward his beliefs.Moral relativism.We have our faults to be sure.Even our seedy underbelly.But if you take a vacation this year look around you at the blessings of freedom.Think of the horrors in North Korea or Iran.I have colleges from Iran.No picnic there my friend.And there are far worse places.No Democracies i can think of fit in that socket.You will see no wars of conquest between Democracies anywhere in the world.Canada and the US have the longest unarmed border in the world.We do have the better way,Nothing wrong with proudly saying it.We do help those who want a path to freedom.Freedom…..a real word.Not respected much by those who were born to it………..mr Pleasehead!
I just love sugar-coated “history” from a Whites only perspective. No wars of conquest? How exactly did 13 colonies huddled along the eastern seaboard of North America come to control the continent as well as Alaska Hawaii and the Phillippines and “concessions” in China non-violently? Explain the 60 year blockade of Haiti by this country and the European poweers after its people fought off the French and other European colonizers. The American gulag, I mean prison system, is the largest in the world and has been for years. Perhaps you can find the time to take your oppressed friends from Iran or North Korea or China etc. to one of the many for profit prisons during one of your freedom tours. Most of the so-called founding fathers were racists and slave owners, who had no understanding of any cultures outside of Europe or North America. These are the people who created a constitution which enshrined white priviledge and white supremacy, while shouting empty self-serving rhetoric about liberty and freedom. Some might call that moral relatavism The new nation was a lot more like Rhodesia in 1969 when it declared independence (for white people only) than some beacon of freedom for humanity. When they were able to, many thousands of Blacks actually fled the newly independent colonies for British holdings in Canada and elsewhere where slavery had been abolished (without an American style civil war). How many people in the American south or European colonies in Latin America, Asia, or Africa or elsewhere were actually set free by the Jim Crow military which fought WWII? Zero. Was what was done by Europeans to Africans in the Belgian Congo, or to Asians in places such as Indochina or Indonesia any better than what Europeans did to each other during the war? I don’t think so. On a final note, were the Americans and European leaders who committed these and countless other atrocities and injustices “crazy,” or does that description/title/analysis only pertain to non-Western leaders or peoples who don’t submit to Western agendas?
Pleasehead please!!!!Look you can pick any continent,any nation,city state or person ,and look at the half empty glass that is chock full of faults and wallow in despair.You can look at world history and freeze in desperate hopelessness.Without motivation or hope for a better world.You can crawl into a philosophical hell where the only future is to die in a bone yard of self recrimination over the worst aspects of mankind.If it serves you well good luck to you.The rest of us would like to get out of your America apologizes touring car- and walk to the curb from here.The tribes of Mankind’s migration has been wondrous, and at times brutal.America is no different.But with freedom as our flag we will do better.That is not a western agenda.It is all the worlds.Where do you see a better way?Recently it was said that Liberals have robbed themselves of the decision making ability to see right from wrong.All is relative.Both sides of any conflict equally right, or wrong.God help us all if this is true.Half the country being trained that there really is no difference between Hitler and Martin luther king.Bush or Saddam.Obama or Ah ma needs a job.Ghandi or the leaders of north Korea.There is a deep pathology here partner.A wounded soul that is incapable of seeing what is best for its self.
Michael, the pathology lies in your thinking that some people (as with the leaders of Iran) are exceptions to principles of psychology, sociology, and anthropology. As for the “finding faults in any continent” nonsense, most people on “continents with faults” don’t simultaneously rape and occupy the planet and claim to be champions of democracy and human rights! That is the mother of all pathologies!
As for the sanctions, they killed 1.5 million Iraqis, one third of which were children. Their purpose was to weaken the country for 10 years prior to upcoming occupation of 2003. It worked. The same thing is at work with Iran. Unless people of conscience interfere, expect an invasion of Iran in about a decade.
Finally, Michael your view of Iranians reeks of xenophobia. It seems like you have never even sat across a table from an Iranian (Persian, as we would like to be called). I suggest that you take a trip to California and meet some of us. It will help you get over your media-induced misinformation, hate, and bigotry.
Free spirit I am often am in California ,with a house in West hills.I know many Iranians there.Good people ,wonderful friends, as well as colleagues.And yes I of course see them as Persian.I see the Iranians as an amazing ,educated people.There lies a people that could be friends to this country on many levels.A young country(Average age of the populous).And there is no love lost among these young people for their leaders.My negative feelings are solely aimed at that leadership.The ruling mullahs ,and of course” Ah ma needs a job”.I do not think some of them are sane.To be more clear I think they are insane.Few bricks short of a full load.As mad as a white faced hornets in a dry gulch.I don’t think that would be news to most of the world .Of course I think your reading of the geopolitical moves that this country has undertaken against Iran…Iraq ,and the motives behind them are simply not true.The boycott did not come first.The boycotts came AFTER these countries failed to meet certain treaties, and agreements..They chose confrontation.We responded.It can be over tomorrow.Stop weaponizing the nuclear material!!!!!!Enriching at that level has but one purpose.To build a bomb.Cease and desist.On the one hand they claim they will never ever build a bomb.They swear on the holy Koran.On the other… they move to do as quickly as they can- as they threaten Israel and us in plain language.You say the pathology lies in(our)thinking.No the pathology is that we know bullshit when we see it.As we speak we are installing anti missile defense shields around Iran..Your attempt to say stand down America -Iran means no one any harm is an opinion.It begs us to sit by as Iran moves in one direction while faking to the other side.Sorry Im not buying it.Neither is Obama.
It is already accepted that Iran, Egypt and some other nations are the most oldest nations around the world. I have some friends that are studying this field in Standford, Germany. So, no offence , but you all need some ground information about 3500 years history. The history that are mixed of Islam and some other factors that have built the body of this country. Therefore, I as a small member of this country believe that you misunderstood on what you guys heard about Iran.
People here are so complex, they should complain about their country’s policy, but that does not mean that they dont like their country. So, I garantee if a war ( real war) happens, millions of youth come to street to join the club.
Now,here people might be under pressure financially, but that doesnot mean that they would fail their country and go to US. 17 millions people are approximately are in 23-32 age. I am 28 and I am contacting with hundreds of studenst every week. They some times complain about the situation that the governement is struggleing with, but they are still fan of the regim. please be informed that it doesnt mean the government is acting prefectly.
let me tell you something. Sanction niether does not put Iran back of the business, nor make iran to get back.
This kind of talk is not just my belief. It belongs to most educated people.
I am type of guy that every day I read yahoo news and some times I say to myself. ” I am not that much bad that america is worried about”.
What I can tell you about the sanction at the last tence is that does US and its partner care about me!!? this country is more than 3 decades under US sanction.
Sorry in advance, my English is not good.
It is all about AIPAC, the people that would not live in Israel for a second, yet ask their proxy in the media and covermnet and finance to start a war. these busters deserve to die