(President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates walk from the Oval Office to the Old Family Dining Room for a working lunch with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, May 18, 2009. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said this morning that “the only path that is left to us at this point, it seems to me, is that pressure track but it will require all of the international community to work together.”
However, it is quite clear that key members of the international community – specifically China and Russia – are not prepared to impose the kind of “crippling sanctions” Secretary of State Clinton has called for.
Given the reality of great power discord on this issue – and Gates’ own admission that a unified international position is required for sanctions to have a chance to work – it seems clear that the sanctions path will be self-defeating.
– Ben Katcher
Paneer
You must be politically naive to think that CIA and MOSSAD are not active in Iran.
Have you studied this link?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14095
If you have, please let me know what you think.
So far, American government has lost nearly 5000 soldiers, spent over 900 billion dollars, killed, and maimed over one million Iraqis?
This is the price American government is prepared to pay in order to change a regime in Iraq and replace it by a puppet government to look after the interests of US and Israel in the region, now you are suggesting that USA and Israel are not involved with has happened in Iran.
Panner: please wake up
To American government, “Iran” is worth far more than “Iraq”
USA and Israel are aware that an attack on Iran will have “catastrophic consequences”; instead, and for the time being, The CIA and Mossad plan for Iran is an agenda to maintain division and instability.
According to your logic, Iraqi people must blame themselves for what happened to their country and not the USA.
In the same token, British and American stole oil from Iran for 70 long years(from 1909 to 1979) and toppled the democratically elected Dr Mohammad Mosadegh, again according to your logic, Iranian must not blame the British and Americans and should only blame themselves, this is absurd.
Regimes come and go and you have the right to be against IRI, but do not scarify “Iran” for the sake of your ideology. The threat from USA and Israel is real.
If you consider the Mullas to be your enemy and the USA, the enemy of Mullas, please always remember this:
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
Dan: Yawn. boring…you have not presented an iota of evidence to back up any of your claims.
And you’re right. the more I spend on this site, the more I realize, it is an echochamber and noone is really interested in new perspective and ideas, only short-term profiteering…
Paneer – Lower the volume please. Your hysterical rapid fire posts convince nobody.
If Iran comes through February with only cosmetic or no sanctions, then it will have won this round. I disagree that a US attack next year is likely. Iran’s influence is only growing in the region. Barring a major turnaround in Afghanistan and a rollback of Iranian influence in Iraq, the US will be loath to attack without suffering a considerable counter attack in the region.
The rarely posed pertinent question is how are US regional interests best served in the region ? The core US interest is securing the free flow of oil and gas from the region. It is clear that attacking Iran at present goes against this interest.
Ultimately the options are to (1) bring Iran in from the cold (2) reduce Iran’s ability to counter. The current “sanctions” holding pattern is time limited, because if Iran becomes “near nuclear weapons” capable, option (2) is completely negated.
As time goes by the US negotiating position deteriorates – unless some major unforseen internal or external Iranian (or US) event occurs.
Thus, I think that if Iran comes through February relatively unscathed, Obama – and the United States – will finally parlay with Iran.
Dan Cooper: You need to read this article. Iranians don’t the US to stand up to tyranny.
http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/jahanshah-javid/its-us-not-them
This is not 1953 or 1979.
You need to read the book “A century of War”by William Engdhal as I suggested before…
genuinely believe Obama understands these options, and what’s more, I believe he genuinely wants to find a way to get the Israeli rod off his back. He is, by and large, inscrutable on these issues but the way in which he responded to Netanyahu giving him the finger over the settlements suggests which way he wants to go. Unfortunately, the lack of an agreement with Iran so far seems to have frustrated him. So much so, Netanyahu thinks he has killed off the Obama threat. In fact, he is practically dancing on its grave. But if Obama pulls off a deal with Iran, the game changes.
LOL. Do you talk to Obama persoanlly?? I don’t think Obama sees it that way and his rhetoric and policies so far attest to that notion. Obama actually does not suffer from covert bigotry…
There will be no deal…Deal with it.
We will remember who stood with the Iranians people and who didn’t.
JohnH – really interesting comments.
What’s driving it all? In my opinion the US is at a tipping point. It can go one way – more of the same, which is propping up corrupt oil-rich Arab dictatorships coupled with unconditional support of Israel and their strategic pre-eminence, focusing on a bogus but necessary Islamic threat embodied by Iran, an arrangement which would be entrenched for decades by a new war.
Or it can go the other. Rapprochement with Iran, accepting and embracing Islamic politics, energy security through friendly trade-based arrangements rather than through anti-democratic oppressive regional policy, neutralising the ridiculous servility to Israeli interests and freeing the US to act independently and in its own interests.
I genuinely believe Obama understands these options, and what’s more, I believe he genuinely wants to find a way to get the Israeli rod off his back. He is, by and large, inscrutable on these issues but the way in which he responded to Netanyahu giving him the finger over the settlements suggests which way he wants to go. Unfortunately, the lack of an agreement with Iran so far seems to have frustrated him. So much so, Netanyahu thinks he has killed off the Obama threat. In fact, he is practically dancing on its grave. But if Obama pulls off a deal with Iran, the game changes.
One reason why Iranians have turned out in such large numbers throughout the country to support the Islamic Republic after the Ashura riots, it because US and European involvement is becoming more and more apparent. The reason why a strong majority of those who supported Mousavi quit his camp after the elections was because of this and because he was unable to provide evidence of electoral fraud. The more the US moves towards confrontation, the more Iranians will back the Islamic Republic. Iran is not Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Vietnam. Things could get very bad for the global economy if the US keeps pushing aginst Iran like this.
Jeremy H. Hammond does indeed lay out an extensive but partial bill of particulars regarding US involvement in Iran and probably in the Iranian elections.
I would encourage people to speculate on the US’ motivation. Election fraud is not a cause for war. Charges of an Iranian nuke program has no legs per IAEA and US intelligence. Every casus belli trumpeted by the US is full of holes, just like every rationale for war in Iraq.
What exactly is the US trying to accomplish? Is the whole Iranian gambit merely a US government fronted operation for some one else’s gain (Israel, oil companies, military contractors, etc.) Or is there something strategic that the US is trying to accomplish but refuses to tell anyone about?
The strategic importance of Iran is the part being left out of the discussion in favor of hot button stuff that plays well in the US media. The discussion needs to focus on strategic issues, not the “made for TV” narrative.
I say it’s all about control of Europe, India, and China’s energy resources at the spigot. What say you? Is that worth another $Trillion war, borrowed from China?
Paneer and all other Iranians:
Please click on the link below, which is both interesting and fascinating;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14095
US support for attacking Iraq was very high the year before the attack was carried out. Substantially higher than US support for attacking Iran is today. 5 years after the invasion, US support for the attack had fully reversed. Today the US consensus is that it was a mistake.
An attack on Iran will not cause as much of a rally around the flag as the attack on Iraq did, but after the consequences become apparent, it will cause more damage to its architects than the Iraq war did, though the Iraq war disgraced former US President Bush.
Compared to Iraq, the faction favoring attacking Iran has done a signally poor job preparing the US population. The US military also speaks as a consensus against an attack, which was not the case with Iraq.
I do not see Obama under substantial political pressure to attack or sanction Iran except from pro-Israel constituencies.
Point taken, but I still maintain those polls are being driven by the forces I mentioned.
So WigWag, how do you analyze this from Iran’s perspective? What do they have to gain by pushing this to the brink?
I realize that anti-Americanism is ingrained in their national indentity. But I think the Iranian people draw a distinction between the American people, and our government, which has a horrendous track record with respect to Iran. One would at least hope that the Iranian leadership would see some value in striking a deal on nukes which would preserve the peace and allow both sides to tout it as a major accomplishment. Or, do you believe the Iranians think that war with the US is inevitable and are setting themselves up for some sort of martyrdom to further a broader war?
Some who favor war will no doubt demonize the Iranians as hell bent for a conflict. This is comparable to the fear of the Soviets that drove our foreign policy for decades. Documents discovered after the end of the Cold War revealed that the Soviets acted to a large extent by fear of an agressive U.S.
I think of the resolution to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Both sides got tangible value for the deal. It had to be structured so that there was no public linkage to removing our missles from Turkey, that were scheduled to be replaced anyway. Perhaps we can find such a solution here before the brink is reached. With no direct diplomatic relations, a crisis with Iran may not turn out so well if we allow this to get too far along.
Wigwag is right. The propaganda effort has been quite effective. The media has convinced Americans that the election was fraudulent though informed analysis disputes that. Americans have been convinced of Iran’s nuke program, even though the folks paid to know these things–IAEA inspectors and the US intelligence community–say otherwise. Americans also think that Iran was meddling in Iraq and that they actively engage in terrorism and threaten Israel with annihilation. The propaganda effort has set the stage so that the US can do what it wants in Iran, and the public will support it. Iraq redux, and Serbia before that.
So who is behind this effort? A government frustrated at not controlling Iran’s vast energy resources? A military in need of bogeymen to justify more wars after Afghanistan, generate career opportunities for the military, and maintain a fearful, docile public? A military industry desiring a guaranteed, long term revenue stream? Financiers wanting to lend more more to a government on the way to bankruptcy? There are lots of suspects, who are in fact the usual suspects.
So why hasn’t the US bombed Iran already? Is Iran more valuable as a threat than as an enemy who could do some serious damage to the world’s oil infrastructure in the Persian Gulf? Is Iran more valuable as a threat to justify military expenditures? More valuable as a threat to keep world oil prices higher than justified by supply and demand? Keeping Iran as a threat achieves most of what designating them as an enemy would accomplish.
“Obama wants very much to engage Iran, secure stability in the region, and improve relations in a meaningful way. However, he and the Dems are forced by the right, and the Israeli lobby to keep up the hostile rhetoric.” (Matthew Sutton)
It’s alot more than the “right wing” and the “Israel lobby,” Matthew. Americans give Obama very poor grades for handling Iran and its not because they think he’s being too belicose (like the Leveretts do) its because they think he isn’t being strong enough.
Here’s the data from the Gallup tracking poll released just today (data collected February 1-3, 2010)
Question: “Do you approve or disapprove of the way President Obama is handling the situation with Iran?
Answer: Approve 42 percent; Disapprove: 50 percent.
He gets far better grades on foreign policy in general; approve/disapprove=51%/44%;
Afghanistan=48%/47%; Iraq=47%/48% and terrorism=48%/49%.
Americans don’t like Iran and they don’t trust Iran. It’s not just supporters of Israel or neoconservatives; hostility towards Iran on the part of Americans is deep and wide.
That’s one of the reasons Obama can’t engage Iran the way the Leveretts want him to and its one of the reasons he can’t do nothing. At least sanctions provide him with a fig leaf to suggest he’s doing something.
But the inevitable can’t be avoided forever. Eventually Obama will have some very hard decisions to make.
Wigwag, in the end you may be right. Call me naive, but I will at least continue to hope for peace.
Neither the people of the U.S. nor the people of Iran want war. The problem though is that our respective governments are locked into their own internal politics in such a way that we are on a collision course.
Obama wants very much to engage Iran, secure stability in the region, and improve relations in a meaningful way. However, he and the Dems are forced by the right, and the Israeli lobby to keep up the hostile rhetoric. Anything less would result in them being run out of office and impinge upon their domestic agenda which already seems to be in trouble with the mid term elections approaching.
Perhaps more bellicose by nature, Ahmadinejad also owes his political life in part to hard line anti US rhetoric. The Supreme leader will not readily allow an opening for the green movement to further attack the current leadership for being soft on the US. Yet if they actively seek to avoid a deal with Obama, they may not be happy with the war that could very well follow with the election of a Republican in 2012.
One hopes that there are some back channel communications going on that would provide an opening for common ground on the nuke issue. There is no evidence of that happening in the media reports. Ahmadinejad is dancing around the proposals and the US is not budging from its original position. Nonetheless, both sides should be working feverishly right now to make it happen. Once we are on the brink, it may be too late.
This should be entertaining:
According to Laura Rozen, Michael Ledeen and Flynt Leverett will be having a debate on Iran policy later in the month. This is what Rozen has to say on her blog,
‘Now that will be quite a debate. Michael Ledeen, the former Reagan NSC advisor involved with the early stages of Iran contra and a longtime advocate of backing regime change in Iran, debates Flynt Leverett, the former NSC official who advocates a grand bargain with Iran and has critiqued those who doubted Ahmadinejad’s legitimacy and electoral victory. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius moderates at the Atlantic Council, February 24th.”
@ Ben Katcher and Flynt Leverett
hi. thank you for this wonderful blog. i wonder why i didn’t find this blog earlier.
i would like to know your assessment about Hassan Beheshtipour’s comment on PressTV (http://presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=118199§ionid=3510303) that Russia is willing to join sanctioning Iran because if Iran enriches to 20% than that would leave out Russia from the proposal that have been drafted by P5+1. Iran will probably at a later stage agree to a new agreement of sending 20% enriched uranium to France directly thus effectively bypassing Russia. what do you make of that, what are the chances of this happening?
thank you
JohnH: Consider yourself ignored. You have no orginal thought of your own.. You have zero credibility. Bash me, belittle me as much as you like until you’re blue in the face. Bruised egos are tough to heal…
I will wait for the owners of the blog to officially invite me to leave.
Paneer–Sad to say. You are constantly repeating opinion, yours and those of your affluent extended family. Beyond that, you are bringing no new information to this blog.
Filibustering here does not make your opinions convincing.
However, your filibustering does reveal how desperate you are to be heard. What’s that about?
My advice, develop credible sources, bring them here, and people will listen. Merely repeating your poorly based opinions will convince no one.
Paneer: “Alan: IRI will join the SCO. That is they survive.
How do you propose to engage with a regime that is not interested in engaging with you??? No amount of incentives or carrots will convince the hardliners to become friendly with the US for the simple fact that in our culture, we don’t forget the past as easily and we don’t forgive.
The IRI remembers how the US betrayed the Shah and will never trust the US ever again. Not just the IRI but any future government of Iran. That is reality.”
—
The thing is, I believe both sides DO want to engage with each other, and if their hadn’t been all these internal issues in Iran for the last 6 months I think we may have had a deal by now. If there was one, say next week, the US can spin it as a response to sanctions talk, while Iran can spin it as a US capitulation. Quite why people just can sit down and say let’s sort this out is beyond me.
Regarding hardliners never agreeing, it was Khamenei and Ahmadinejad that wanted the deal early on, and had to backtrack in the face of opposition. Rightly so in my opinion.
Trust is not so crucial in the wider picture; just a deal. Observance of the terms of any deal by both sides will build a degree of comfort over time, but probably never trust. Iran should simply make sure they are never in a position again where they rely on the US, and then trust or the lack of it won’t be that relevant.
Iranian quisling…Your testostrone-driven, false hubris and bravado is what wars are made of…Do you really think you can win a war against the US or Israel???
Yes, sanctions are useless and will only strengthen the IRGC’s underground economic empire.
They know sanctions are coming and that’s why they have removed the subsidies, so they can blame it on sanctions instead of their own incompetence.
BTW, Iran’e economy is in shambles…
Even if China and Russia were to support harsh sanction, the Iranians have the ability to make life very very difficult for the Americans. Just a look at the map is enough to show haw difficult the American position is right now. Iranians believe that the US needs Iran today more than Iran needs the US. In addition, the vast majority of Iranians support the nuclear program and by increasing pressure on Iran the US government will only make President Ahmadinejad even more popular than before.
I hate being on this blog. But I’m astounded by the lack of informed people here…that’s all. I don’t enjoy being on a blog where I can’t learn anything of substance…beleive me, it’s painful.
I will leave if you’re enjoying your echo chamber so much…
The owners of the blog can easily ask me to not comment here anymore. I will wait for them to officially ask me…Until then JohnH, you need to reflect and leave your ego at the blog’s door.
JohnH: Try to learn something instaed of trying to bash me…Bashing me is easy. Learning is hard. In the larger scheme of things, you and I are both irrelevant. Grow up!
Paneer has 18 of the 27 comments so far. He’s obsessed! Unfortunately, quantity does not translate into quality.
Paneer should chill or start his own blog.
NOT to threaten Iran for fear that it will turn the screw and fully nuke up. Assuming for a moment you agree with that statement, wouldn’t you want Iran to be free of threats?
Also, if Iran does decide to go fully nuclear, most likely it will officially deny it or maintain an Israeli-like policy of ambiguity.
The Japan Option will not do such a thing…The Japan Option under IRI will eventually embolden the IRI even further in its main ambition of driving the US out of the region and allowing China and Russia to fill the power vaccum.
It’s akin to Al-quada having nuclear powr to me. Do you think a nuclear-armed al quida will be not be challenged??
IRI is a Shia version of Al-Quada to me but much more sophisticated and cunning with much more effective lobby and propagnda apparatus placed in major universities in the West and even in the foggy bottom…
That is the crux of our disagreement here. Let’s agree to disagree.
I don’t know if wigwag really wants war with Iran. But that is the reality. I’m willing to look into my enemies eye and tell him I know where you’re coming from. I understand your point of view. Let’s solve our dilemmas peacefuly and in creative ways rather than war.
Kooshi: It has nothing to do with Laj. Wake up brother. It’s not too late to be on the right side of history and stand with your own people…
Paneer, I certainly wish Iran nothing but wealth and security. Given your total agreement with WigWag, I was beginning to think that you were hoping for a foreign invasion to sweep the Greens into power. Knowing, perhaps that that’s the only way they wil ever get there.
Iran does not need to produce a single weapon. Once it becomes clear that it could make a weapon on short notice, there will be tremendous pressure NOT to threaten Iran for fear that it will turn the screw and fully nuke up. Assuming for a moment you agree with that statement, wouldn’t you want Iran to be free of threats?
Also, if Iran does decide to go fully nuclear, most likely it will officially deny it or maintain an Israeli-like policy of ambiguity.
When governments fear the people so much that they will not allow protests to their policies and must only carry banners that praise those in power, they have lost any claim to legitimacy. Threats of violence and death against the people will only cause the people to continue until the regime has fallen.
At least I don’t refuse to hear the other side, if we all did we wouldn’t be where we are now
There is a Persian proverb that says “As Laje Gazor Tanban Najest Nbayad Kard” if your Persian is rusty it means
“You shouldn’t poop in your own pants if you happen to have a problem with the person who does your laundry”
Videos: Iranians protest across Europe
Leading up to Feb. !!
http://homylafayette.blogspot.com/2010/02/iranians-protest-around-europe.html
The Thug-in-Chief Promises ‘punch”
Domestic Terrorism approved by the Supreme Leader
Huffington Post / Nasser Karimi
Iranians “will punch (them) in their mouths to shock them,” Khamenei said.
The opposition, he said, was not a part of the Iranian people. “Today, it is clear that those who stand against the great job done by the Iranian nation in the election, are not a part of the people” of Iran.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/08/khamenei-vows-to-deliver-_n_453242.html
Kooshi: The world is finally waking up to the menace of IRI. The world will not be cowed by a bunch or suicidal ideologues.
Would you prefer the IRI hegemony or their bosses, namely, Russia and China.
Kooshi: You’ve been watching too much Press TV.
I agree there will not be a war against Iran under Obama…The rest of you tirade are not worth responding…
Liz: Non-sequitur drivel per usual.
The Obama administration’s policy toward Iran for all intended purposes is dead by its own rhetoric of change and that is all that matters to the global observers, contrary to what was believed Obama was not able to change the 30 years old policy toward Iran of containing the spread of Iran’s influence, regardless of if he honestly intended, or wanted to, what it matters is that he didn’t or couldn’t for any number of reasons. The results of this administrations Iran policy failure has made the life much more difficult for its immediate allies as well as the Security Council permanent members. that is clear with the outcome of last week Berlin security conference.
What is important is that if the previous administration didn’t have the political and military capabilities of striking Iran at the height of the US power and its global position, at the current momentum the current administration has a lot less chance while this country is in its most severe economic conditions while the American forces are bugged down with at least 3 wars for past 10 years without any achievements and nothing to write home about on any of its current engagements. So the conclusion for any outside observer is a failure of this administration that was not able to implement its own highly announced engagement policy with Iran and the rest of the Muslim world.
Striking Iran is a fantasy for those who are concerned with loss of US global hegemony and some Los Angeles based expatriate green revolutionaries who fantasies a green revolution is coming this group constantly fails to mention what would the second day of striking Iran looks like, what if Iran retaliates in any possible way it could, they also need to explained what kind of collation would be formed would the NATO courtiers be willing to contribute which one of the neighboring countries are willing to be in this coalition it is clear a sea based only operation is impossible to mount even with 4 carriers so therefore a land base operation is required who would be the host country at what price. And what would a 2nd day of strike looks in the global energy markets and if by any chance Iran retaliated would US becomes engaged in a declared or not declared war with Iran, would that effect the current 1.6 trillion deficit and if increased could that be financed may be Wig Wag is Zig Zaging this answers we all need to hear from his group.
There is an Iranian hiding behind every tree in Maryland and Virginia. The US is under siege.
Liz; Do you think your target audience are the Basiji et al in Iran? Do you think you’re still in Iran and you can get away with propaganda with impunity???
I hate to break it to you. This is not the IRI.
Liz: I thought you were Iranian. Do you work for VEVAK?? SAVAMA? MOIS??
I think we are past usual VEVAK propaganda on Iran. Hanna digeh rangi nadareh.
Propaganda mouthpieces of the proto-fascist oligarchy does not mean a thing…
You’re eitehr willingly ignorant, or completely in denial…
Iranians that I know portray a very different picture. They say that the population is highly educated and that the country is one of the most developed in the region and that, in fact, it is the less wealthy and disenfranchised that are among President Ahmadinajad’s staunchest supporters. They also say that there are over 40 Persian channels broadcasting inside the country (each provence has its own channel). I think some Iranians in the US feel so insecure about themselves that they can’t even tolerate a single Iranian television channel in English (Press TV).
Lysander: . After that, no one will ever lay a finger on Iran.
How many are they going to produce???
I don’t buy that for a minute. Given the fundamentalist nature of IRI, Nuclear-armed IRI will be more vulnerable to war of unspeakable devestation than an non-nuclear aremd IRI.
Is that what you wish for Iranians?
I actually agree with some of what you say, WigWag. Sanctions are there because there really isn’t anything else they can do. Their purpose is to limit Iranian economic and scientific development as much as possible. For those, like yourself, who pray for war, they are a necessary (but not sufficient) precursor.
I’m not sure if there will be war or not. WE will know in the next few months. If there is no deal with the west and Iran successfully enriches to 20% but suffers no attack, the bluff will have been called. After that, no one will ever lay a finger on Iran.
typo correction: That is IF they survive.
This might help some to understand the IRI’s ruling elites mindset:
Liz says:
February 7, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Yes watch out for Press TV. They are a threat to the stability of the United States and the free world.
This comment gives you a rare glimpse of what the IRI’s elite have in mind for the region.
Why would a country with an economy the size of Connecticut, and according to the 2009 Human Development Report, Iran is ranked 88th in percentage of Population living below the national poverty line, behind Azerbaijan and Thailand, will invest so much in a Propaganda media such as PRESS TV for only English speaking people?
Ponder on that for a while and hopefully the long-term goals/delusional dreams of the IRI will start to emerge.
p.s.: The IRI also invest heavily in Arabic speaking media NOT PERSIAN. Al-Alam, and others?? WHY??
Alan: IRI will join the SCO. That is they survive.
How do you propose to engage with a regime that is not interested in engaging with you??? No amount of incentives or carrots will convince the hardliners to become friendly with the US for the simple fact that in our culture, we don’t forget the past as easily and we don’t forgive.
The IRI remembers how the US betrayed the Shah and will never trust the US ever again. Not just the IRI but any future government of Iran. That is reality.
WigWag – what if by that time Iran had joined the SCO? It seems as though the imposition of unilateral sanctions may precipitate exactly that. Meaning bombing them would incur a reaction from Russia and China akin to the US reaction if somebody bombed a NATO country.
I think Obama is more interested in putting a lid on the Israelis, and devising a strategy that neuters them, because the only point of conflict with Iran is the Israeli fear of losing their strategic pre-eminence.
Iran is a much more valuable future friend to the US than Israel could ever hope to be. And I do not believe that Obama is remotely interested in creating the monumental mess the bombing of Iran would cause. Even if any Iranian response was disregarded, the poisoning of all the GCC states they are purported to be protecting is a significant deterrent.
Nobel Laureate, Wiesel, Publishes NY Times Ad Calling for Sanctions
richards1052
07-Feb-2010
Cross posted to Tikun Olam:
http://iranian.com/main/blog/richards1052/nobel-laureate-wiesel-publishes-ny-times-ad-calling-sanctions
Wigwag: Spot on.
Why is this so hard for Ben Katcher to figure out? I wouldn’t have guessed that a Clark Unversity graduate would have such a hard time understanding the rationale of imposing sanctions. Here’s a newsflash, Ben, nobody in the Obama Administration actually believes that sanctions will prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons if they choose to do so.
This is what sanctions accomplish for the Obama Administration
1)They provide it with more time by delaying the moment when a decision is needed about whether to the United States will attack Iran; support an Israeli attack or instead work on containing Iran.
2)Sanctions demonstrate to a U.S. public that is highly suscpicious or Iran that Obama is doing something.
3)Sanctions placate Sunni Arab governments that hate and fear Iran and shows them that the Administration is on their side.
4)Sanctions demonstrate to Israel and Israel’s tens of millions of supporters in the United States that the United States takes the Iranian threat seriously.
The idea that the United States will engage Iran in the manner recommended by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett is dead. It will never happen. There is no domestic support for this strategy (outside of a few fringe “experts.”) There is little foreign support for this strategy from the Europeans, the Israelis or the Sunni Arab governments.
Sanctions are a necessary prerequisite for an American military strike. No President wants to say that he launched a military attack without trying something else first; that something else is a sanctions regime regardless of how porous or ineffective it might be.
Sanctions are going to be imposed on Iran with or without Chinese and Russian support. Those sanctions will not deter Iranian nuclear ambitions and several months down the line, the Administration will face a choice. It will realize that Israel does not have the military capability to get the job done.
Obama will then be forced to either bomb Iranian military and nuclear installations or to tell the world that a nuclear armed Iran can be contained just the way that the Soviets were contained and other rogue nations like North Korea are contained. Obama will then need to develop an approach to facilitate that containment strategy. Some of the things necessary for containment will include enhancing israel’s second strike capabiity (Germany is already doing that through the sale of submarines to Israel); providing Sunni Arab nations with increasing military support, especially missile defense systems and specifically placing Israel and the Sunni Arab nations under the American nuclear umbrella.
My guess is that Obama will realize that as much as he would like to, he can’t accept a containment approach; instead he will attack Iran with U.S. forces.
If Iran develops nuclear weapons on Obama’s watch it will be politcially devastating to him and to the entire Democratic Party. Obama will be ridiculed as weak and ineffective. Given the American public’s disdain for Iran, if Obama allows Iran to obtain nuclear weapons he will be viewed as feckless.
If so called progressive people are fed up with Obama now; just wait 18 months or so until he orders American bombers to drop tons of ordinance on suspected nuclear installations and Revolutionary Guard facilities.
When he does, it’s hard to predict who will be more upset, the Iranian public or the Leveretts and their ilk in the United States.
I’m glad Obama is neither listening to Radical Neocons nor the Radical “realiststs”. Both camps are frothing at the mouth and are angry at Obama.
We are lucky to have a global thinker as our Presdident.
“United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said this morning that “the only path that is left to us at this point, it seems to me, is that pressure track but it will require all of the international community to work together.””
That’s a bit of a hostage to fortune. There’s no chance of international unity. He must realise that. What’s going on? Surely not a deal?