Lysander, I agree that there’s a place for “speculative analysis.” I brought up the point because your writing seemed to reflect an assurance I personally couldn’t credit, based on anything I know. So, fair enough.

I won’t take the space to attempt a detailed analysis, but I think U.S. concerns about the Islamic Republic have been primarily (as Kooshy says) that the revolution and its ideology will spread. Hindering Iran’s economic development through sanctions was/is one weapon in that particular battle. I just don’t see any evidence that the U.S. is concerned about Iran’s economic development per se. I would be grateful to anyone who can produce evidence of any kind pointing to U.S. worry over Iran achieving economic primacy in the region (other than as a development that would tend to increase the regime’s prestige and political influence).

USSR invaded Afghanistan right after Iranian revolution to protect the Afghanistan and central Asian soviet republics for fear of spreading Islamic
Revolution in their Muslim soviet republics, and admitted it was a big mistake, west unleashed Salaam on Iran it didn’t work it actually worked against them and unified Iran then started a sanctions regime and a propaganda war which continues today and will not go away even if Iran sends all its nuclear equipments where Ghadafi sent his.

Sanctions are nothing new to Iranians sanctions basically is the same thing as siege on old fortified cities most of the time you will need a Trojan Horse to make them look
like it worked, to my understanding the west has actually built a Green Trojan Horse outside of the Iranian border and it’s been taken inside the fortification, but so far has not been very successful. If you now understand , well I am sure the Leverets understand

Now since there will likely be no written record of such a policy, what would constitute proof/evidence in your eyes?

Comparing today with the time of the Shah is entirely flawed. There was a Soviet Union at the time and the overriding concern was to win over as many nation states into an anti Soviet block. Sanctions would have driven the Shah into the Soviet Union’s arms. Also, the Shah was placed in power by the US and so could be expected to align Iran’s policies with those of the US. The IRI was not and cannot not.

Furthermore, instead of criticizing said lack of evidence, perhaps you can demonstrate how my line of thinking is flawed. Maybe you can offer another explanation for 30 years of Iran sanctions that is consistent with known phenomena.

When it comes to judging the intentions of a Government policy, we can not simply rely only on official statements. And yet since True intentions are hidden, we need sometimes to offer speculative analysis. The analysis I offered is consistent with known facts and prior US government policies. If you have a better one, please let us read it.

Thank you.

Kooshy, I take your points but I don’t think they prove your case. There are other reasons why Iran was targeted in ‘96. You noted the inclusion of Libya — surely no one was worried about Libya achieving economic predominance in North Africa. It’s clear that there are powerful interests in the U.S. (and elsewhere) that are opposed to the Islamic Republic. But I see no evidence that their worry is Iranian economic dominance. If that were so, they would have been sanctioning the Shah’s regime.

I asked why people believed sanctions are designed to hinder economic development for two reasons: 1) I personally wanted to know what evidence there was for this. 2) I was hoping people might start thinking first before posting. Online commentary accomplishes absolutely zilch if it contains nothing but the suppositions and prejudices of the writer. If you want people to read you and give serious consideration to your arguments, your thinking and the exposition of your thoughts need to as rigorous as possible.

Basically sanctioning energy technology transfer( Iran only rewards buyback contract’s to foreign developers of oil and gas fields to get the technology) for oil and gas development means slowing Iranian’s economic development, why would you need to slow them because you want to prevent (contain) transferring their idea to other client states around the block, how could others get the idea, when they see a good one that worked what would make this idea not successful in the eye of the other Muslim countries
1- Independency done checked ,
2- Democracy and a civil society ok relatively more than the others in the area at least you get to change the president every 8 years checked
3- Economic betterment of the population blocked how to block them, well I wrote about this on last post

Otherwise you are right Iran can be the best partner in the religion but when Hillary says Iran is the source of instability in the religion she means they can spread
the idea of independence to others and make the client regimes destabilized

This exact reason was what it was told to then Iranian ambassador to Washington Allayer Saleh at the time of oil nationalization and a few days before the 1953 coup by non other then under secretary of state.

Keep in mind that Iran has been under US sanctions since 1979. Under Bill Clinton in the 1990s, those sanctions were expanded. No one ever linked those sanctions to Iran’s nuclear program back then.

Now, broad based sanctions, such as those on Iran since 1979, have no other purpose other than to hinder economic development. What other purpose do you suggest? We are not talking sanctions against a specific import, but against any company that does any significant business with Iran.

Furthermore, keep in mind the United States has never stated under what conditions it would ever lift sanctions. If it’s the nuclear program why not say “end your program entirely and we will lift all sanctions?”

Now, ask yourself, what would happen if the US lifted all sanctions on Iran? How much foreign investment would flow in? How much technological exchange would occur? What foreign markets would be opened up to Iran? How much higher would Iran’s oil production be? How much natural gas would flow from Iran to Europe? Or India? Or China? How much stronger would Iran’s economy be?

With all that, what would happen to Iran’s regional influence? Would it diminish or grow? Would the US want it to grow? Would Israel want it to grow? Would that be less or more dangerous than the hypothetical possibility of Iran developing nukes?

Your statement about the Sunni-Shia divide is not accurate. Other than a relatively small number of Salafists and Wahabists, Sunni Muslims recognize Shiism as a perfectly legitimate form of Islam. This has been stated by Al Azhar University Scholars in Cairo, by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and by numerous Sunni Muslims that I know personally.

It was widely heard in 2006 during numerous pro Hizbullah demonstrations throughout the Muslim world.

Of course it is certainly true that there is now a Sunni/Shia split in Iraq, but prior to the US invasion, Sunni/Shia intermarriage was commonplace and without stigma.

Now what I have written is short of incontrovertible legal proof. But ask yourself if it makes sense. If not, what explanation makes more sense?

Iran is only dangerous to the West’s interests in the region if the West insists on opposing Iran. There is no organic reason why Iranian and Western interests must clash. It is in the West’s power to change course toward Iran, and surely the Islamic Republic would respond to sincere efforts to engage on mutually beneficial terms (the last three words are, obviously, key). Does any think that Germany, for example, considers Iran dangerous to its interests? Germany sells billions of dollars worth of stuff to Iran; that has real meaning for the German economy and the German people.

A “strong Iran” will only ally with Russia or China if driven into one or the other’s arms by Western hostility. The West has things Iran wants that cannot be supplied by either Russia or China.

Iran has “the admiration of most of the Muslim world, Sunni or otherwise”? This would surprise any Middle Eastern or Islamic scholar I or anyone else can think of. The Shiite-Sunni divide is a real one, with 1,330 years of history behind it.

What was said about JFK and the U.S. military is quite true, though hardly recognized as such even today. Nevertheless, the U.S. military of today is not quite the same animal that it was pre-Vietnam. To aver that the conditions of 50 years ago still prevail in the current situation is no doubt convenient, but does nothing to advance our knowledge.

I have to say that what I read from all of you amounts simply to expressions of opinion. None of you pointed to even a shred of evidence to support your views. There’s nothing wrong with spouting off, of course, but making one’s feelings known convinces no one except those who share one’s prejudices. And what’s the good of that?

The military does not necessarily think about the aftermath. JFK repeatedly had to refuse the top brass, who were adamant about making a preemptive strike nuclear strike on the Soviet Union. They wanted to invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis, not knowing that the Soviets already had a lot of nukes there. And after JFK was assassinated, Johnson apparently told the brass to “make sure that he got elected, and then they could have their war.” Apparently, that’s what they were itching for.

These are not deep thinkers. They did not think through the consequences of a preemptive strike on the Soviet Union or Cuba (JFK had to do it for them.) They did not think through the aftermath of Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq. They just want to do what they have been trained to do and use the latest gadgets at their disposal.