From Time:
Ahead of this week’s U.N. Security Council deadline for Iran to abandon its nuclear activities and an expected report from nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei, U.S. officials have been mapping a plan to hit the defiant regime.
But the attacks will be financial, not military. The U.S. and its European allies will ask the council next month for a resolution that would pave the way for political and economic sanctions. If, as expected, Russia and China threaten a veto or stall, the U.S. intends to work outside the U.N. to isolate Tehran “diplomatically and economically,” Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns said last week. “Countries that trade with Iran … ought to begin to rethink those commercial trade relationships.”
Among the plan’s first targets: Iran’s accounts and financial institutions in Europe. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met last week with the finance ministers of Britain and Germany, where, according to a U.S. Treasury study, Iranian-government banks operate branches to handle funds generated by the oil trade. The U.S. wants non-Iranian banks to stop facilitating Tehran’s money flow. A senior official involved in devising the strategy told Time, “It’s about convincing financial institutions not to deal with bad guys, because they’re worried about their own reputations.”
Iran has shifted some accounts from Europe to Persian Gulf countries in anticipation of a squeeze. So Under Secretary of State Robert Joseph traveled to seven countries in the Middle East earlier this month to talk with officials about “what we can do together to disrupt the proliferation activities,” he said. Financial restrictions “can have an effect on Iran’s ability to acquire more technology and expertise from the outside.”
Another possible move is a disinvestment campaign similar to that used against apartheid-era South Africa. A study by the Conflict Securities Advisory Group, a Washington consultant hired by the State Department, found that 124 publicly traded European companies have ties to Iran and that European banks are financing significant energy and telecom projects there. A disinvestment campaign could be tough to pull off. But U.S. officials hope that while conscience may not get those firms to quit Iran, the threat of bad p.r. might.
A predictable tactic—and a heartening suggestion that the US has been preparing to circumvent the UN Security Council and form coalitions outside of UN presumptions to world governance that may soon render the SC permanently inconsequential.
This does not mean, of course, that any kind of military action is off the table; it simply means that the Bush administration will try (as we did with Iraq) to go the international sanctions route.
Seymour Hersh will likely find this news disappointing—and I’m sure we’ll soon begin hearing arguments from the many contrarians who oppose anything Bush does on principle alone that political and economic sanctions will only inflame Iran and make it more likely to act violently, an argument that sets Bush up for blame, and prepares academics and leftwing pundits to begin their blowback articles.
And of course, we shan’t forget the children who are likely to suffer and die under a sanctions program. Hell, what else can Iran do under such desperate circumstances but finish their nuclear program and threaten strikes on Israel? And recruit arch-terrorists…?
(h/t Allah)
You know, if gas prices are going over $4 a gallon this summer anyway, why not just bomb the crap out of those mullahs and their fanatic clone armies? Get the oil prices high enough by bombing Iran so renewable fuels can take over. Make Europe whine even more than usual. Tired of waiting for Peak Oil, mofos? I’ll give you peak oil you sissies!
I haven’t laughed so hard in weeks.
Jeff, unfortunately, I think you are right in your predictions of left-wing blame/blowback/just plain blow.
This, not Iraq, will prove to be the last handful of dirt thrown on the grave of the UN SC. I would not be surprised if China and/or Russia won’t try some last minute “deal” to “save” the situation (and, of course, their ability to use the UN to gum up/restrict/hinder US action).
Well, it’s probably a better fist step at economic sanctions than just mining the Straits of Hormuz…
I’m happy I ride a bike, not a car.
Don’t forget the Splodeydope Brigades.
So, what if Osama really is issuing his missives from Iran? How does that change the game?
But…but…but…they’ll get MAD!
BECAUSE FO THE ANGER!!
form coalitions outside of UN presumptions to world governance that may soon render the SC permanently inconsequential.
No real argument with the rest of your post, but do you really see this as a positive outcome, despite the history and potential long-term consequences?
Congratulations! Have they taken the training wheels off yet?
The only way sanctions would even get the Iranian government’s attention is if we blockade their oil exports and we’re not going to do that. That being the case, there’s no need to harm the Iranian people with other economic sanctionsâ€â€and that’s all sanctions will do.
Better that we kill Ahmadinejad, Khameini and the Guardian Council without attacking the Iranian military, parliament or even their nuclear facilities. But that’s not what we’ll do; in the interest of “peace” we will have to put sanctions in place and wind up beggaring the whole country because it’s essentially international protocol. And then, after they’re poor and miserable as can be, we’ll STILL wind up having to blow the shit out of the place, essentially securing our Iranian title as the Great Satan forever, regardless of who is running the country.
I find the whole thing really depressing. I believe that if we could manage to take out the theocratic leadership then their democratic leadership would take over and we could be victorious without the first American boot touching Iranian soil.
yours/
peter.
So how many of our principled universities are promising to divest from Iran yet?
They’re booking dick cheney on the speaking tour right now.
Wars UN has prevented: Zero
Wars UN has extended indefinitely: Palestinian/Israeli, India/Pakistan (Kashmir), Korea
Wars UN has made impossible to end: Kosovo; Africa, specifically in the Sudan, Nigeria, Liberia, Rwanda, Somalia…errr, Africa; Palestinian/Israeli
That does not include the scandals, corruption, and complete incompetence of the UN to do nearly anything. The UN is worthless. Dynamite it.
… nnngh… GAAAAARRRRRGGGHHHH!
We’re nearing the point that the doomsday prophecy I had earlier will come true. We get the entire country up in arms against us (As the sanctions won’t do a lick of good unless we do it with oil etc etc…). Iranians will pass the pain off on the poor masses, blah blah… masses will get propaganda “SEE WHAT AMERICANS DO TO YUOS” and, bada bing, bada bang, bada boom, we get a much larger yet easier target, as in a significant section of the Iranian populace brainwashed into being our enemies.
I could be totally wrong, but that sounds like the only scenario that can really play out. Sanctions are the only weapon we can wield, it seems.
Granted, I pass no real judgement for the former scenario, because, barring one of you folks wiser than I pointing out where I’m hyperventilating, there simply isn’t a better way this can play out.
With any luck, the battles ahead would be easier, as the amount of games to determine who is friend or foe would diminish significantly…
Not, of course, that I support killing the populace of Iran, but if it comes down to them vs. our soldiers, the choice is obvious. This isn’t JIMMY CARTER’S ACTION COMMANDO SQUAD. If the folks over there take up arms against the US Army, THEN THEY GET TO FIGHT THE US ARMY.
Leftards and Russo-chicom-chavez thugs with all the sincerity of Ted Kennedy at a MADD meeting will claim blowback, but Bush knows the Iranians won’t stop their nuclear weapons program for any reason, including on account of sanctions. I agree with Peter Jackson that the push for them, then, has to be a cynical exploit designed to showcase US multilateral, non-militant inclinations to foreign and domestic Amerikkka critics living in the last century, just before we are “forced” to override our peaceable approach when the sanctions, as designed to do probably in conjunction with black ops, provoke hostilities and terror acts attributable to Iran and give Bush *no option* other than to send in the bombers. But Peter’s idea that we can surgically remove the Iranian theocrats is pie-in-the-sky silliness, especially given how the CIA is at odds with Bush’s mission, Plame is no longer available for covert assassin ops thanks to Libby and even the new 007 is gun averse in real life.
When it comes to thwarting rabid Islamist aims, the EU has shown us that soft diplomacy and bribes don’t work. By default, Bush will then prove the futility of sanctions and perversely the utility of their failure. In a post-tranzi radicalizing nuclear world, diplomacy is death and force is hope for our side.
Actus wrote:
Couldn’t pass the driver’s license exam.
Indeed. We’re not going to sacrifice for them. Rather, its the other way round.
Thats how liberation is meant to be.
Oil hit $75 a barrel last Thursday or Friday—and we seriously think that we are going to impose economic sanctions on Iran?
Why do we lie to ourselves?
Peter Jackson wrote:
You know, if I thought that we could actually impose sanctions which would beggar the whole country, I might support them. But sanctions on Iran means that the supply of oil is lowered, and that means that the price of oil, which just hit $75 a barrel, goes even higher. Does anyone here think that France and Germany (which had such sterling records of compliance with the pre-war sanctions on Iraq), which need the oil, are going to pay the first bit of attention to sanctions against Iran? Does anyone here think that Kofi Annan, whose hands were so clean when it came to Iraq, would try his hardest to keep up sanctions against Iran?
It was easy for the United States to keep up the sanctions against Iraq—because those sanctions didn’t cost us much of anything. When sanctions do cost the imposing country something, those sanctions get honored in the breach.
Will someone tell me how George Bush, with a job approval rating in the thirties, is going to impose economic sanctions against Iran that would raise the price of gasoline for the American consumer?
Liberation? Nah.
If it comes down to US Citizens being killed, or in sure DANGER of being killed by mass murdering thugs, the ones doing the killing need to die.
It really IS that frickin’ simple.
That’s called “defending your country”, your side should try that sometime Actus.
Well they could always cut off a significant part of their oil exports to the rest of the world driving oil prices well beyond $US100/barrel and sending the western world into a global recession. Or alternatively decide to price their oil exports in Euros, hence undercutting the almighty US dollar’s position as the global standard and potentially triggering a mass worldwide sell off of US debt. Which given the unbelievable size of US Deficits would almost certainly destroy the US economy.
But I’m sure they haven’t considered either of these options or have they?
Must be it.
Word.
Uh, Dana, imposing sanctions cost us a fuck lot, some 40,000 troops stationed in the Gulf, continuous flight operations, and the price for three more years of sanctions, versus war, was only $100 billion less than full war.
That’s a whole lotta mullah.
You mean Bush is faultless when it comes to the Iraq mess?
You serious?
***
I hate to sound countrarian, but based on Bush’s past performance in Iraq, it’s hard to imagine any good coming out of this current anti-Iran financial initiative you write about.
Iran made a mockery of Jimmy Carter, Iraq’s already damaged Bush II, and the way things are going, Iran will finish the job–totally destroying whatever remains of Bush’s credibility.
Interesting the way the Middle East chews up presidents, isn’t it?
Among whackjob leftists and Eurotrash nobility, but I repeat myself. This is somehow a bad thing, why?
Goss: I don’t think Cartner needed Iran for him to be made a mockery of. Just sayin’.
Well said. This will also seriously hamper a lot of our enemies’ enthusiasm and morale: they expect us to hinder ourselves voluntarily because of our participation in such international regimes, but when it becomes clear that we’re willing to act independently of them, their confidence shall surely fall. It’s important, anyway: our enemies are quite adept at abusing these international regimes and their allies’ lack of dedication thereto to hinder and delegitimize us.
Not just amongst the Whackjobs such as yourself Vercingetorix.
Worst president EVER
<ahref=”http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history?rnd=1145488898506&has-player=true” target=”_blank”>
The whole red herring about how difficult it is to successfully hit ‘hard’ targets never ceases to amaze me.
It’s the soft, squishy, targets that need to be hit. And no, we don’t need to actually kill every last one of the leadership, just kill enough to drive the rest into dark holes from where they cannot control the country.
Maybe the Iranians will see it as an opportunity to free themselves, maybe they won’t, but if another set of lunatics wants to step forward and be human bullseyes – so be it.
The solution is simply, invade Mexico, steal their oil & we then have cheap, legal labor. While we’re at it, take out Canada. Such exports as Celine Dion & Lover Boy easily qualify as WMDs. Hell, Disneyland has a bigger Submarine fleet so what kind of fight are they really going to put up? Besides it’s all about Manifest Destiny & American Imperialism. I say let’s embrace our inner Chickenhawk/ war mongering ways that we have so long been accused of having & just invade. We’ve got the guns, the numbers & the element of surprise. How long could it possibly take, Tuesday’s light for me.
I’ll see your reference to Rollingstone with one to Hustler…
God almighty, what a maroon!
Yeah, Rolling Stone as a cerebal exercise? Puhhhh-LEAZE!!! My guts are aching from laughing too hard.
Don’t forget Cuba and Venezuela, if we are gonna keep being called Imperialist we might as well act like it for a change.