The greatest hope for Iranian democracy is being squashed, not by the repressive military of the local overbearing authoritarian government, but by the bootheels of the self-styled beacon of liberty. FULL ARTICLE by Jonathan M. Finegold Catalan
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13545/unintended-consequences-of-trade-sanctions/
Unintended Consequences of Trade Sanctions
Previous post: The English Civil War and the First Libertarian Movement
Next post: Fleury, Fénélon, and the Burgundy Circle
{ 104 comments }
Excellent article. I wonder,though, about the possibility that the American regime either wants a war for some (no doubt fallacious) strategic purpose or deems a war to be inevitable. If so, then, the sanctions may be means of intentionally provoking the Iranians into being the first to do something ‘hostile’ according to world opinion. Wasn’t this the method of Roosevelt toward the Japanese, at least by some accounts? If we can conceive of an unintended consequence following from some action, we can also conceive of the possibility of that action being taken intentionally to achieve that same consequence.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/celente/celente45.1.html
Check out this interview with Gerald Celente about the coming war with Iran.
Celente is a hyperbole salesman. Hmmm, I guess he fits right in with the conspiracy nuts at Lew Rockwell and Mises Institute.
Evidence, Jim. Evidence?
There is a sliver of truth in the statement. There is a bit of a PR problem in libertarian circles (a major reason I discontinued going to Campaign for Liberty for example) considering they do attract a healthy portion of conspiracy theoriests. I’ve seen among the group the following:
Raging racists
9/11 Truthers
People who think all of our problems will be solved if all humanity became subsistence farmers
People who believe the Moon landing is a hoax
People who believe that the way to battle cancer, a genetic mutation mind you, by consuming vitamin B17, which causes cyanide poisoning
The Federal Reserve system is an international conspiracy created by people who are now long dead for the sole purpose of people not related to them to get rich
Think the Council of Foreign Relations is a shadow government
Among other things. PR is important and going to extremes comes off badly. There are ways to promote free markets and sound money that don’t involve attempting to lay blame on the harmful intentions of others. We have plenty of hard evidence to work with, and that’s enough ammunition to avoid looking like lunatics when Glenn Beck goes on an emotional on-air tantrum by clearly separating ourselves form the nutjobs.
You’re right, but even talking about rolling back government programs and solutions with the free market are too much for a lot people – Sadly, it seems like the free market is so far removed from people’s everyday lives that wanting it means you are radical. What works best is getting people to realize that their lives are being run by someone else, and then pointing out how taxation is the same thing (for example).
You are right. There is some of what you list going on there. Is Lew Rockwell too tolerant of opinions that carry a ratio of 1:2, meaning 1 grain of truth to 2 that stretch or invent?
I disagree with Jim Raynor on his opinion of Mises Institute. However, he is right about Gerald Celente. He would like to pretend that he is a prophet, but he ain’t. He is no libertarian either.
Yeah, the other day he was going off on some “buy american” bullshit. He’s a dumbass spouting man-serves-”the economy” tripe
JM, I agree with you about all the nutters. Myself I don’t believe in a conspiracy theory of some templars, or masons, or illuminati or what-have-you “running” the world. Especially because I believe that, were that the case, the world would be better off ;not because a central planning committee is running things but because the controlling party would have an interest in greater liberalization (think Hoppe’s monarchy versus democracy).
This is also why I found Lew Rockwell’s podcast with Russ Baker so distasteful: it suggests the reason the U.S. is run as a dictatorship is because of nepotism, and if the evil bush family weren’t pulling the strings, democracy would reign and we’d be all good. Problem is, democracy’s the real problem, nepotism not so much.
Indeed since private people tend to leave their assets and wealth to their children.
excellent article. listening to scott horton on iran is depressing, but rings true.
http://antiwar.com/radio/
Excellent article, indeed. It makes a very succinct case against sanctions of any kind and at any time. Of course sanctions harm the citizens. In an essay I wrote a few years ago, I made the same arguments, that in fact the best way to advance revolution in a country is through free trade, enriching the masses and leaving their government to answer to a populace with the knowledge of the true identity of their oppressors.
One should notice that the way in which sanctions are promoted is the same as how economic regulations are promoted: by discussing only the intended outcomes, with no regard for the process that supposedly will provide that result. And, just like regulations, sanctions often have the opposite of the intended effect.
You can’t enrich the masses when it’s only those with the guns that are allowed to prosper.
IMO..If Iran didn’t have oil then that regime would have fallen a long time ago.
“You can’t enrich the masses when it’s only those with the guns that are allowed to prosper.”
A rather cynical take, no? True, guns are powerful, but they are not omnipotent. If free trade was opened vis-à-vis U.S. policy, it would necessarily improve the lot of the Iranian people. Whether the Iranian government adopted ever more oppressive policies would not change the fact that a policy of free trade is one of that will benefit the citizens more than their current situation does.
And why focus on oil? There are plenty of industries which a state can strangle to prolong its existence. The absence of oil does not equal a free Iran. Perhaps it would mean a different regime, but that’s speculative. The only thing that will result in a free Iran is a populace willing to bring it about. That is not the case at present, and likely won’t be for a long time.
All that said, the cessation of sanctions can only aid in the likelihood of a liberalized Iran.
It’s no more speculative than suggesting the cessation of sanctions would aid the likelihood of a liberalized Iran.
Take Venezula and China for example.
True the sancations may not be effective, but it’s up to the regime to determine that. As long as there isn’t a real threat to their existance there will be no change in policy.
I think you misunderstand my reasoning. If it is true that sanctions centralize wealth and power, as this article suggests — and I hold that it is — and thereby make authoritarian government more likely and pervasive, then necessarily the removal of them will reverse that likelihood. It doesn’t make liberalization probable; it only makes it more likely. This increased probability might still be an outside shot, but you can be sure that the sanctions weren’t making things worse.
My arguement is that wealth and power will be centralized regardless of whether sanctions are present. Venezuala (sp) is a perfect example.
Venezuela is also a perfect example of a regime losing credence in the eyes of its own people.
But, without sanctions, people can prosper (or have a much better chance) and then, have a chance to overthrow the overloads.
“If Iran didn’t have oil then that regime would have fallen a long time ago.”
Funny when you think of the democratic regime overthrown by British and American gangsters in 1953 because of oil. What’s to be done with the messes made is always a tough one, like all the terrible messes British and American gangsters made in 1917.
Funny, the “democratic” prime minister wanted to nationalize the oil industry in Iran. A funny guy for you to be defending.
He was voted in, why the scare quotes? (and if the Iranians want to be commies, that’s their business, they want that here now and I have to deal with it) If he sent his goon squads over here, I’d say the same thing for Eisenhower.
Really lame ploy, btw, related to your “Evil America” ploy.
Voted in by whom? Do you know how the Iranian voting system and parliament worked back then? Ahh, but never-mind. Isn’t he a representative of a “state”, and therefore, automatically, “equally evil”?
Is taking private property away, “Ok if the people vote the government to do it”?
Ahh…a couple of more steps and you’ll be saying how Chairman Mao was also elected by the people, so its all-ok.
I still call America a Democracy, too.
Evil in different ways. Communism and fascism are different.
Never said anything was OK, your tactics are too lame and your slobbering over the U.S. Gov is too sickening to enjoy, goodbye.
Yeah, why are you defending the institution of Democracy? The fact that institution was “democratic” means the majority was imposed their ways onto the minorities which in turn is evil too. One evil regime was merely ousted to make way for another evil regime. Kind of like the American Revolution, eh?
Wait what? The American Revolution was an evil regime change too…according to you guys? Wow. Jesus christ…
It wasn’t the revolution that was evil, it’s the fact that we’ve morphed into a Democracy that is. The original creation was a republic, where the majority did not rule. The intent was to create a system where no one ruled. It’s somehow changed to Democracy and Democracy is, unquestionably, an evil form of government becuase it lets people trample on others simply by having a larger voting bloc.
And Iran isn’t a Democracy. It’s ruled as a dictatorship with the dictators setting up puppet elections so they can satisfy UN rules. The same goes with China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
Ok. I may share some of your frustrations and limitations as well. You have the TOOLS to change this. ALL you have to do is convince your fellow citizens enough, to change it back.
Most places in the world (in fact none that I can think of), don’t have the tools to do so (peaceful direct tools). This where the phrase “fat lazy American” comes to mind, and where I may agree with it slightly.
It is INSULTING to the rest of the people in the world that don’t have anywhere near the same tools of FREEDOM that you as Americans do. Period.
NONE of this, however, justifies any sort of argument other than “freedom is not free”, and that freedom requires vigilance and effort. The guys who created your Republic TOLD you as much, and told you as much that this isn’t something that will remain so, if YOU don’t keep it so. You gave up on vigilance, and lost some. Well you can get it back…without having to resort to what some of the posters above here are resorting to (silly anarchisms and “hate America”). It doesn’t justify any arguments of “well I don’t like my Congressman so I’m perfectly willing to let Iran export terrorism or keep killing its own citizens”.
Freedom is not selective, it isn’t free, and it isn’t easy. Nor simple. Stop trying to make it so.
Freedom isn’t free, agreed. But the price of freedom isn’t flying to the other side of the planet to blow up people who wouldn’t have any trouble with us if our nation was legitimately free. At no point did we ever hear out of any group that has motivations to attack and harm the United States claim they hate us for being free, for being open, for trading with the world, or any other such activity associated with freedom. Iran, et al, hate us because our government does things that are counter to freedom. America can’t be made guiltless in any of this since it was our own government that violently overthrew Iran’s chosen system and installed a brutal dictator in response, a dictator that makes the current Mullah system seem tame. A free America would never have done such a thing.
And I agree, I am disgusted with the vast majority of my fellow countrymen. They’re lazy, stupid, and foolish people. They’d rather give up their lives to someone else for the thin illusion of stability. It’s a shame they just don’t understand that fighting against tyrrany and fighting to keep a truly free society is far easier than living under a totalitarian regime. Just ask any enlisted Army soldier what life is like. That’s what America will be if we chose to allow government to run our lives.
I must disagree here once more. There is little doubt that the governments or groups that may “hate America” out there, do so for reasons that are absolutely NOT related to the degree of freedom in America. Certainly they don’t hate you because your congressmen passes large budgets for the EPA every year
The two are unrelated, and I think it would be best for “libertarians” to make sure to separate the two worlds. Our problems here at home, are entirely unrelated to why the Taliban or the Islamic fundamentalists or Iranian government may “hate America’s government”. There’s good reasons to oppose some aspects of it, and there’s bad reasons.
The intent of the Islamic government in Iran is to place under the personal control of its hierarchy the control of oil and other resources in the Middle East. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see why this is unrelated to budget deficits in the US.
The intent of the US government policies in Iran and the Middle East is to keep the market of oil…free (as free as it can be….ie get it flowing to upstream operations through market mechanisms). As a result, these two goals come into direct conflict with one another.
I think it is a FATAL mistake to assume that people hate you because of something you may have done. And even if it is because of something you may have done, that doesn’t mean that the at of interfering in such matters is in itself “wrong”.
Bombing Milosevic into oblivion for massacring tens of thousands of Bosnians and Croats and Albanians…certainly created a lot of “hatred” of the US amongst the Serbs. Certainly it was an intervention, and a forceful one, where the US may not have had any business in. That doesn’t mean that what was done…was wrong, or wasn’t worth the costs of doing so. The Balkans today is a far more peaceful and prosperous area than it was 10 years ago, PRECISELY because of US intervention that eliminated anti-free market coercive forces, and enforced freedom of choice amongst the populations there.
I view the fact that coercive, fundamentalist, anti-freedom, anti-free market violent regimes may “hate” America, not as a negative but as a positive.
But the act of intervention, in itself, isn’t enough to be “evil” or “good”. Those who view intervention as “evil” because it is intervention into someone else’s problems, FAIL the logic test in my opinion simply because that is not how they act in their daily lives. No one would argue that it is “wrong” to intervene to stop a murder, a mugging, or a robbery. It isn’t “your problem”, and you’re not required to intervene. But it makes sense to do so, even if there may be a cost to you associated with it.
PS: The argumentation often heard in the Leftist US press, or in relatively brain-dead Western European mindsets, are hardly convincing for me. Unfortunately what you have said here, is a word-by-word tired old beat Leftist arguments one can hear in the streets of Brussels and Amsterdam. But frankly, they are wrong. Frankly, these are hypocritical and counter-productive arguments. Frankly, these are the arguments I’ve heard the same European Leftists making when hundreds of thousands of people were being massacred in the Balkans or Chechnya or elsewhere: “well its not our problem”. What they REALLY meant, was “well they’r just Muslims. Killing Muslims is bad only if Jews do it.”
The world would be a far less FREE, far less interdependent and interconnected, far less prone to free trade and political freedom…were it run under the principles of “let everyone do what they want to do.” Just as in the micro-world within a nation, where the rule of law and the enforcement of law is a prerequisite for a well-functioning free market, so it is in the international arena.
Whether the US should do this or not is a mute point. There’s hardly anyone else who would produce better results.
Very good – you would think that with a little common sense, politicians would see that the other countries of the world (not involved with sanctions, or ignoring them) can simply trade with Iran and gain a market advantage. Acting like sanctions stop under the table trading is a joke.
Did sanctions against South Africa hasten the end of Apartheid?
Yes.
not necessarily.
http://mises.org/daily/1501
Congratulations on another great piece, Jonathan. But I have to wonder why one should assume that these are unintended consequences. A brief survey of U.S. history from at least the American Civil War onward strongly suggests that the U.S. government is actively opposed to liberalism and free markets, not in favor of them. (This is also reflected in the rhetoric of most neoconliberals who are constantly berating free market ideas in the snide and arrogant rhetoric they dispense to the unenlightened lumpum who so desperately need the guidance of benevolent central planners.)
I suggest that a political strengthening of the current Iranian regime is exactly what the Washington consensus desires to achieve with its trade sanctions, which would be consistent with U.S. foreign policy for at least the past century or so, up to and including the expansion of U.S. government power into Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. If the U.S. was to keep its hands off Iran altogether and the current Iranian regime was eventually deposed and replaced by one that was relatively more liberal, why, the new rulers might turn out to be a lot harder to control in many respects.
It would be much better from Uncle Sam’s perspective to shore up the ruling mullahs’ power base in order to provide a pretext for massive carpet bombing and a regime change controlled by Washington and its allied sycophants rather than a bunch of unruly Iranian youngsters.
“If the U.S. was to keep its hands off Iran altogether and the current Iranian regime was eventually deposed and replaced by one that was relatively more liberal, why, the new rulers might turn out to be a lot harder to control in many respects.”
It will only happen if Iran ran out of oil.
A lot of interests would still want war with an oil-free Iran – any company who makes aircraft parts, for example. So, I don’t think it will ever happen.
Nice, Jonathan. It’s always a pleasure to read something here with which I agree.
Sanctions do nearly always have a reverse effect to the one intended. Post-Gulf War sanctions against Iraq, for instance, only made the public rally around Saddam, and against the foreign aggressor. Only once in a while, as when we sanctioned South Africa, does the pressure really exert itself toward productive change.
But regardless of good sense, we’ll never give up sanctioning Iran. The Israelis would never allow it. It’s a political thing, like the Cuba sanctions, not a rational one.
The fact is, Iran is surrounded by present and potential enemies, all of whom have the Bomb. I include Iraq and Saudi Arabia (and Afghanistan, Turkey and Jordan) as American clients. Russia has the Bomb, as does Pakistan. They’re not going to develop a nuclear defense? Then of course there’s the real reason…
As for internal politics, don’t place much faith in the Greens for a while yet. Iran is two distinct populations. The urban sophisticates are progressive, pro-business, literate and secular. The rural majority is primitive, superstitious and excessively pious. They haven’t had the benefit of good schooling. And the government has shown it’s prepared to be ruthless. There’ll be no revolution.
All we can do is to sit back and enjoy it. No action will result in the toppling of Iran’s government or the derailing of their nuke program. Done deal. What we should keep in mind, however, is that they’re neither poorly thought out nor suicidal. There will never be an Iranian first strike.
(Ahmedinejad? He’s a stooge and a front man. The real leaders don’t give many interviews.)
So all we have to worry about is an impetuous Israel, upending the status quo for all time.
Sanctions provide an excellent scapegoat for the targeted regime for any and all problems ailing the nation. Cuba, North Korea, Burma, Iran, all of them can point to the United States and say, “They’re responsible for your pain.” They can rattle off a laundry list of infractions that entirely true.
Remove the sanctions, remove the aggression, and suddenly the regime is cut off from the scapegoat. Blaming someone else ceases being believable because no external force is doing anything to the population. All that is left is the government itself, unable to hide behind anyone.
Theses regimes always find a scapegoat.
I agree, but the scapegoat becomes more and more fanciful and unbelievable over time if there isn’t a major action like a sanction or military maneuver going on.
Then why has this liberalization not happened here? The US Government made a scapegoat of the capitalist class and it worked perfectly. Whose to say Iran won’t find another internal scapegoat if sanctions end?
That said, end the sanctions. Free trade improves the lives of everyone involved. I’m all for that.
I think the reason capitalism has been successfully been made a scapegoat is we’ve managed to convince everyone such a thing exists. With the long period of boom prosperity, the general public was fooled into thinking it was all free markets and capitalism that was running the show. When it all went sour, everyone assumed it was because of markets because everyone took it for granted their existence.
Iran isn’t going to have that luxury. When the current scapegoat vanishes, they can’t switch over to something else and still remain believable to the public at large. Much like how this nation is beginning to figure out that government was behind all of our ills this entire time because free markets and capitalism are supposedly being destroyed. It’s only the illusion that is dying.
Re: Christopher,
Why then give one for free?
End the embargo.
Not bad until you had to go and bring up Cuba.
Surely you know that Cuba is one of the two places on earth (along with North Korea) where one actually does trade with the government. You are correct that the Cuban people may have been harmed by the embargo and that the government survives, but with American trade, the Cuban dictatorship would be even richer and stronger and the people still living off its scraps.
Craig,
If your biggest potential market cuts you off, who else are you going to trade with? You bring up North Korea. Yet, Kim Jong-Il’s decision to let limited trade flow between China and North Korea, and to an even more limited extent North and South Korea, was probably the worst decision he could have made in respect to the survival of his regime. Not only did the standard of living increase for many North Koreans (who even went as far as to change currencies), but when Kim Jong-Il decided to act on this increase by outlawing savings and devaluating the currency, he faced never beforehand experienced opposition to his rule.
This is blatantly incorrect.
The sanctions hurt the people, the people provide for the regimes, the regimes supplies, and food are harder to receive. Sanctions that the U.S. has continually initiated on countries with little to no defense, and many natural resources to extract, are usually to make it even a little more difficult to be able to have the overall moral and strength to have a chance to rebuttal against the U.S.’s and the U.N.’s plans for control and hegemony. This is very evident throughout our history of dealing with small, non-democratic societies, with resources we want. If Iran does create a functioning nuclear program, I believe America will cease to be an overbearing aggressor, just as with North Korea, and either the U.S. will respect the countries singular decisions, or their will be significant turmoil.
If I may disagree for a bit. In my opinion the sanctions, probably, will end up both hurting and helping the regime, but at different levels. Your assumptions may hold true if we were dealing with a society where a relatively free market economy already operates. In that case, yes, sanctions would drive down the dispersed power of individual Iranians, and increase their dependence on the Iranian government.
However I don’t think you have taken into consideration the fact that there really is no such thing as a free market operating in Iran today, and there hasn’t been one for a long time. The organisations engaged in import-export of almost any good in Iran, are all closely tied with the Iranian regime (specifically the Revolutionary Guard). They monopolize their sectors through government force, and feed into the coffers of the government as a result. Iran’s economy is much more closely resembling to a state-run economy, then a free economy that you may be describing here.
So imposing sanctions that directly hurt the import-export companies, actually does directly hurt the Iranian government. The two, in reality, are the same people. So if you CAN cut off legitimate trade by Revolutionary Guard owned companies, then you certainly can hurt the regime.
The problem of course if that you just can’t cut off the trade. Iran has plenty of space and experience to undertake black-market trades, not just with shady dealers but openly with countries like the UAE etc. Iran is already a master at black-market dealings since 1979 (which may be due to the US sanctions since 1979, which would support your point, but most likely due to simple consolidation of power in the hands of government players).
The problem with sanctions, in the end, is that they can’t work. Certainly not against someone whose intentions ARE to be an outcast in the eyes of the world. (SA succumbed to sanctions because its intentions were legitimate business. Iran’s government intentions have been simply to get all power in their own personal hands)
PS: On those airplane parts. Most of Iran’s military support aircraft are the same types as its civilian aircrafts (tankers, transports etc), so it makes sense to block those from being exported to Iran if your intentions are to cripple its military. Of course it doesn’t work because the market finds a way no matter what…and really that isn’t the reason Iranian planes are crashing (the Iranian gov. likes to blame it on the sanctions, however)
PPS: The Iranian “Green Movement”, while it may have some “liberal” democratic elements in it, for the most part simply represents opposing elements to the current guys running the economy in Iran. Its a turf war. Mousavi has already been a PM in Iran in the 80s, and a bloody ruthless murderer at that too. Rafsanjani is as much of a crony politician trying to monopolize as many industries in his pocket as you can get. While the intentions of some Iranians may be a liberal democratic system, the realities of their options don’t allow for this development. Bringing “liberal democracy” to Iran is just as an elusive fantasy as bringing it to Iraq or Afghanistan. Some things, just aren’t for everybody, just yet.
Just my 2 cents.
E.G.,
I, in fact, did not assume that there was a free market in Iran. This article is in large part inspired by my beliefs on how a free market is progressively developed by a country’s middle class. This thesis originated with my research for a past Mises Daily (“Nation Wrecking in Afghanistan“); take the following quote from Kimberly Marten’s “Warlordism in Comparative Perspective”,
The progressive creation of a free market requires an increasing standard of living. The rate at which the standard of living rises, of course, is not uniform, and will depend from country to country (the point being that all of this occurs more effectively when it is allowed to happen naturally, as opposed to force). Nevertheless, it is an intrinsic quality in humanity to always seek to satisfy desires and increase one’s wealth, and so given time it inevitable for some type of middle class (middle class relative to other classes in that society, of course) to arise.
A rising middle class, seeking better methods of protecting their wealth and property, develop a code of law between each other. This is how such a thing as property rights came about in Western Europe and the United States (see Hernando de Soto’s The Mystery of Capital for research on property rights in the United States). It is this friction between the middle class and the state which ultimately undermines the ability of the state to rule absolutely.
I further elucidate this thesis in a draft to lay out my ideas: “Cowboy Economics”. I write there,
Apart from the historical examples of the United States and Western Europe, a present example where we can see this relationship unfold before our eyes is North Korea, which I explain in a post above,
So, what’s my point? My point is that even assuming that the large Iranian industries are somehow involved with the state, it nevertheless follows that these types of enterprises necessarily lead to an increase standard of living. Some productivity is better than no productivity, after all. By directly damaging these industries you also necessarily hurt the people these industries redistribute some of the wealth to (through wages). Also, industry owners themselves tend to help the process of the creation of the concept of private property.
Furthermore, I think your claim that trade sanctions are ineffective because of black markets is ludicrous and is counter to all available empirical evidence. It ignores the tens of thousands if Iraqis who could not obtain foodstuff over the black market, and therefore starved to death. It ignores the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Iranians who could not obtain other economic goods, through the black market or otherwise. Trade sanctions are very effective at stopping meaningful trade.
Finally, regarding Iranian aircraft, I’m not sure on the exact composition of the Iranian private air fleet, but it’s not so clear that private airliners and the Iranian military operate the same transport aircraft. Ironically, the transport aircraft used in largest quantity is the American C-130 (with the Chinese Y-7 and Russian Il-76 used in large numbers, as well). The civilian airliner that crashed earlier this year was a Tupolev, and the one shot down by the United States a long while ago was an Airbus.
Jonathan, I agree with most of what you have written there, to some degree. Certainly a direct result of trade sanctions is a lowering of productivity, and therefore a lowering of the standard of living of the average Iranian wage-earner (in theory). However, your comparisons with “cowboys and medieval merchants” may not be, in my opinion, entirely related to the situation in Iran. Specifically, in Iran we are dealing with a typical case of crony-ism.
I don’t think Iran lacks very much the creation of a “middle class”. It probably has a wider middle class than most countries under a similar economic development, and one which is relatively free to move round and about and to engage in economic activities in its own right. What prevents this middle class form being much more, is its internal government oppression.The specific Iranian problem, as I see it at least, is that the regime in place there has as its specific goal the accumulation of economic power in its own hands. Avenues in and out of the country are controlled by IRGC companies. Strategic and large enterprises are controlled by IRGC and regime companies. Its worst then Venezuela, in other words.
US sanctions did not cause this to develop. Internal factors did (their own government). US sanctions are most likely, not going to affect this trend one way or another. I think that was my main point (when I said it probably will both hurt and help)…on net it may be a wash. And the reason for this, is because the sanctions have always been ineffective on Iran, and they will continue to be.
Now let me explain why I think so. Imposing sanctions on a country which can be geographically isolated, is not that hard. Sanctions against Iraq were crippling because Iraq was surrounded by “enemy” countries. Iran, Kuwait, Saudi, Kurdistan in the north. There weren’t many avenues to get anything in. Jordan and some areas near Syria were about the only way through…and in fact they were pretty porous. (and I don’t buy for a minute the argument that anybody was starving to death in Iraq, or that they couldn’t get black market goods in. I think we need a lot more research on this).
Iran is surrounded by a multitude of countries which are under no obligation whatsoever, and in no interest to enforce any sanctions on it. The country that makes the most money from trading with Iran is UAE. Iran has multitudes of shell companies around the world, from where it can buy whatever it wants (bar most military equipment, but of course there’s a wide open market in China for that). And it does buy whatever it wants through these shell companies (if they are “banned” materials). The problem is that most large Iranian companies that do operate freely in international markets (where they may not be restricted very much at all by sanctions), are also in the hands of IRGC henchmen. But most Iranian companies are pretty free to operate anywhere in the world they wish to.
I think looking at the evidence on Iran, there’s just no evidence that the sanctions have worked for the past 21 years (so I agree with you on that). Because those sanctions are in fact not very stringent at all, and practically there’s little way of enforcing them. They don’t affect 90% of economic activity that Iran may be engaged in, or Iranian citizens may be engaged in.
I think you may be thinking that there are very restrictive clauses in these sanctions, or that they can be enforced. I think if you’ll look at Iran’s economy, you might see that there’s actually very limited areas covered by the sanctions.
The threat to developing a market-based economy in Iran isn’t US sanctions. It is the regime’s intent of centralizing economic power in the hands of its henchmen. And it does so regardless of what other nations may say.
PS: Your North Korea example, may not be very related to Iran too. I think this because the limiting factors in trade with North Korea are not really US sanctions on it. But rather, the degree to which China, Russia or South Korea want to trade with it. And they don’t particularly want to all that much. But sanctions or no sanctions, the responsibility for the brutal regime and the dismal performance of that country rests squarely on the shoulders of its own regime. Its not US soldiers shooting at North Koreans leaving NK, its their own guys shooting at them. So while everything you said…stands…it has little to do with the US.
PPS: On the planes thing, I was specifically talking about its 747 fleet, a type which also serves as the main tanker ans support aircraft for the IRIAF. The sanctions are mainly aimed at that. But here again, we have a good example of why sanctions just don’t work and have never worked on Iran (bar specific military products). Theres thousands of companies selling any and all parts for any and all aircraft Iran has…and there’s hundreds of Iranian shell companies buying any and all of these parts on the open market. It hasn’t stopped or affected their civilian operations to any measurable degree. If there may be any safety failures, the regime will blame them on “the evil West”, but its most likely due to the ineptitude of the companies operating the planes.
E.G.,
Unfortunately, I feel like you are missing my point. You write,
I never defined the extent of Iran’s current middle class. Iran, at one point, had a wealth strata of society. But, the current extent of Iran’s middle class is largely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Also, it’s clear that government oppression limits the growth of the middle class (this is a theme that is explored in the article I linked, and also a reality in Western Europe). The point is that as standards of living rise, there is a greater amount of people willing to resist that oppression.
And, in any case, trade sanctions are not a method by which to help an increase in the standard of living.
Honestly, if so, only marginally.
Nobody said otherwise. This has nothing to do with the article.
If you were willing to try to look up information, you’d realize that there is plenty of research on this topic. A black market can never replace a white market in terms of magnitudes of trade.
The effects of U.S. trade sanctions on Iranian citizens are actually well chronicled, at least if you believe the American-Iranian citizens who consistently criticize the sanctions. This article was actually inspired by an Iranian who I met when I went to a local press conference held by a congresswoman who represents La Jolla. It’s true that Iran does trade a lot with nations who are not under obligation to follow U.N. sanctions (except Russia), but this doesn’t mean that it hasn’t felt the effects of sanctions.
It would be like saying that if China erected sanctions on the United States, the United States could just as well recuperate this trade by trading with others. This claim is nonsensical.
In fact, the first time I’ve heard that U.S. sanctions have not had any effect on the amount of trade in Iran is here, from you. So, I’m sorry, I guess I just haven’t seen the same “evidence” you have.
Again, you missed my point (and, actually, got it completely wrong).
I understand your point, I think. I agree that as standards of living rise, the tendency to weaken the regime rises as well. But this has almost nothing to do with the imposition of US sanctions, and won’t really be hurt by them (and won’t be helped by them either). The Iranian regime is not interested in raising the standards of living, or in dissipating its power.
Secondly, you’re under the assumptions that these sanctions will curtail or eliminate the white market for any substantial part of the Iranian economy. I think if you look at the evidence, this is not true. They have not in the past, and they will not in the future. Involvement in international “white” trade by individual Iranians or Iranian companies (that are not controlled by IRGC), is limited almost entirely by regime crony-ism, not external pressure.
Third, trade with Iran or by Iran. I think most of the people talking about the effects of the sanctions on Iran, may actually be confusing symptoms, or diseases (I cant figure out which). Even the US itself, exported about 683 million dollars of goods to Iran in 2008 (US trade balance with Iran from 1985: http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5070.html And you will see these were about the highest figures since about 1992). I don’t know what those numbers translate to, but more than half a billion dollars in exports with Iran doesn’t seem extremely restrictive to me.
The reason I doubt the accounts, is because I think those people may be attributing the declining economic performance and declining availability of goods, to sanctions. When in fact they may be attributable to the performance of the internal regime. Because they WANT to believe that the situation in Iran can be fixed…easily and quickly. I don’t think thats the reality. (and the reason they want it to be so simple, is because their political agendas may in fact dictate so. Some on the left think its…America’s fault of course…Some on the libertarian side may think that, well, limiting trade is bad so therefore it must be doing negative effects. Both are too simplistic, and probably wrong)
But we can look at more detailed statistics, to show that there has been no measurable effect of sanctions on Iran. http://www.amar.org.ir/Default.aspx?tabid=2128&Id=836
This is an official Iranian government statistics website. If you click on the xls file, you’ll get a spreadsheet of the trade balance of Iran, from 1965 to 2006 (Iranian years 1344 to 1385)
The left column is exports, middle is imports, right is total. This is supposed to be non-oil. I don’t see a pattern of decreasing trade by Iran. Quite the contrary. There’s a fall in trade activity in 1986 (due to the intensification of the war with Iraq), and a fall in 1978 (Islamic Revolution). Otherwise there’s a positive growth in all parameters, and very positive in the last few years.
So I absolutely will doubt the claims that the sanctions have, in fact, reduced trade and have reduced the ability of the average Iranian to engage in trade. What has done so, is the ineptitude of the regime, the crony-ism, and standard state-ism.
And the reason is, because the US sanctions have a very limited scope. They don’t affect 95% of the economic activity. If one looks at Iran’s trading partners, and what it trades with them (besides oil), one will see a very extensive network of trading partners that includes most West European countries and most Asian countries. This won’t change.
I would agree if your ASSUMPTIONS were in fact true. That the sanctions COULD drive out the white market, that they could prevent legitimate trade from happening. But the facts show that they don’t. If the case were that the US imposed a trade EMBARGO on Iran, for US markets, for European markets etc, and only left the options of UAE or Turkey open to Iran, then yes of course the sanctions would probably be pretty degrading. But this isn’t what the sanctions imply.
This is what your argument basically boils down to,
My argument boils down to…these sanctions have not had a clear measurable impact on trade by Iran. And the reason for this is, many-fold.
What has played a role, is the fact that trade by Iran is concentrated in hands of IRGC henchmen…
Now you may not agree with this, but at the very least you can see the trade statistics showing my point.
“I don’t buy for a minute the argument that anybody was starving to death in Iraq”
No, I don’t think people starve to death on 1000 calorie rations (people tend to get sick , children don’t do so well, and also bombs tend to kill people), but I definitely don’t want to defend your government’s ex-puppet on that decision, it all stinks so much.
“the evil West”
This really is a handy thing for you, isn’t it? Of course the U.S. government is evil, all governments are instruments that thrive on evil and the British/American Empire is the biggest one of all time.
The “philosophy” of empire, “The Mr. Blonde Philosophy”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYFmDclNDDU
Hmm…yeah no I don’t think this needs a reply. Sorry. Try harder next time.
What for? No amount of logic and effort will ever suffice against your type. Herbert Spencer couldn’t do a thing, I don’t think I will, just entertaining myself and others from time to time.
I have a minute I didn’t know I’d have, so I will try a bit more. It looks like you are an ex-quisling who received American citizenship. Quislings always see things in a very narrow way. Everyone who doesn’t work in the government sees government action in narrow way. Those who work in the government see things as clearly as a carny does.
Mpolzkill, as I said you’re going to have to try a lot harder than that. And primarily not rely on ad-hominems, particularly when you get it all soooo wrong
Let me ask you something. What’s “my type”? Just curious
PS: Why can’t I reply directly to your posts? Anyway…
We have reached the limit on the total amount of replies, you’re doing it right I think hitting the last possible reply button.
1. The only things worth replying to in *your* posts (and just negatively) was your disgusting propaganda suggesting that people weren’t murdered by the Iraq sanctions and your use of the old “Evil America” reversal trick.
2. What was so wrong exactly?
3. Your type: Statist or State dupe.
4. Ad hom is the only answer against American fascists just like it is the only answer against little league fascists like the Nazis and Soviets. You must be reviled as if you were a child molestor which is one step above say Hillary Clinton.
Ahh…lol. At least now we’re getting somewhere. No beating around the bush.
First of all on the sanctions on Iraq. I never said it killed nobody. I never said they didn’t have detrimental effects. I do take issue with a phrase like “tens of thousands were starving”. Thats exaggeration, and an oversimplification of an extremely complicated issue with many players and many factors. One might argue that Saddam controlling all ins and outs of the country and monopolyzing food distribution…MIGHT be a factor here. But no?
My sincere…HOPE…is that a place like Mises.org would have been a place where people based their arguments on some deep, well researched, objective factual intellectual debate…and all that junk. You know…I may have been thrown off by the “economics” in the title. I hope I’m still not wrong.Second, on your assumption that I am a “stateist”
Well I’ve never been one for ideological labels. Nor have I ever met anybody with whom I agreed with 100% of the time. But needless to say I have a slight crush on Milton Friedman 
…so your classification of me as a “stateist” based on the fact that you disagreed with me on one sentence, is hilarious.
Third, what did you get wrong? Well for starters what exactly makes me a “quisling”? I was born in a communist country, experienced communism first hand, then crony-ism (then war)…then I came to America. I can’t even begin to fathom what you’re talking about. But it sure as hell is fun when you try.
As I think you are darkly funny. “No beating around the bush.” Good, yes?
To clear something up, I have no idea (well actually I do) how “statist” came to mean “totalitiarian”, that’s not my definition:
State = State
ist = advocate
Statist = you, as in “”the US SHOULD be engaging them”
PROBABLE quisling, as you here sound much like the original one did when his favorite fascists interfered with his country:
“first-hand experience of how such regimes may work, and how US pressure in most cases is positive”
So *you* got that wrong, I said “it looks like” and you look like it as you welcome the predations of American fascists in Eastern Europe and you’re from Eastern Europe.
What else do you think I got wrong?
“My sincere…HOPE…is that a place like Mises.org”
There will be no end of people who will mentally masturbate with you (civilly debate what you think your masters should do, a.k.a. engage in policy discussions) here, don’t worry.
Oh, and I didn’t say you said the Iraq sanctions didn’t kill anyone, you massaged it to suit your purposes. And *I* suggested that the Iraqi gangsters ultimately killed their people when they had their falling out with American gangsters and wouldn’t yield to the Empire’s demands. All governments’ position on all of these matters is put succinctly by Mr. Blonde.
I appreciate your attempts to condense the real world down to chew-able 2-word phrases. “The predation of American fascism on Eastern Europe”
wow. I’m speechless.What else you got? 
PS: WOWwwww….
PPS: All states…and so on and so forth. I also appreciate your attempt at speaking in absolutes and in terms only a Utopian (of any color) can relate. Unfortunately I’ll disappoint you, since I have few Utopian absolutist tendencies.
The whole world is not simple, gangsters are, and their gulls even more so.
You are the Utopian, the schemes you have bought into are all over this forum already.
The State is merely a gun. If you are not in the business of crime, you have no business with the State.
Ahh. Good luck with that, good sir.
PS: The problem I have noticed with some tendencies of “libertarians”, is that they have an incredible desire to divide and categorize each other endlessly. Who is more “libertarian”, “anarcho-this and anarcho-that”, who has read Ayn Rand more times…and so on and so forth. And if you, somewhere, happened to not be as anarchist-this and anarchist-that, than the next guy, why sir you must be a god-d*mned Communist!
You know who else has such absolutist tendencies? Religions…Communists…and all their sorts. Boy…if you disagree with one tenet of God or Marx, boy oh boy you’re going to burn in hell.
Silly. Fortunately its only a fringe problem. But it takes effort to keep it a fringe problem.
PPS: Gangsters aren’t simple either
They’re extremely complex, even more so what they do. Nothing is simple, nothing is easy. Every attempt to boil down the world to simplistic ideologies (state = absolute evil under all and every circumstances, you’re a child molester if you disagree and you deserve to have sex with Hillary Clinton)…has failed and will fail.
No, no hell, “Mr. Blonde”, that’s more your line when people don’t do what they’re told, as we can see from all your comments.
Yeah it’s a fringe, those who oppose all aggression, that’s why the world is in the state it’s in.
Opposing all aggression is wonderfully easy when nobody is trying to aggravate against you
Wonderfully easy.
I wonder…if you were born in some village in Kosovo, and had Serbian tanks rolling down the hills, what you would think about how useful “opposing” this aggression through youtube videos would be? I wonder how “American fascism” might feel then?
Ahh…absolute blacks and whites are so easy on the internet.
Yeah, you’ll have to ask Predrag here, I’m from a country that has never suffered an unprovoked attack from foreign gangsters. We only get attacked and farmed by local gangsters, that’s enough to fool most people.
There is nothing wrong with defending yourself, there is nothing wrong with asking others to help you. *Asking*, not stealing others’ money and children to do it.
When you make a deal with these people you’ll get more than you bargained for. You do know, Utopian, that you only get one mother and one father in this world if you’re lucky, right? And real friends are hard to come by.
Ahh…at least I got you to admit that “aggression” is useful and needed sometime
And that there’s times to apply it.
How the Army is funded is quite a different issue, from the fact that an army serves a purpose, other then “gangster-ism”. How the US funds its army is quite a different issue, from the fact that it does, on most occasions, use it to help victims of oppression.
So you’ve got no argument here except that the moralistic “but they’re STEALING from me!” argument.
Ok…given that we might need an army, at times, to defend ourselves from aggression, and perhaps to defend our “friends” and other victims of oppression (or is that still a no-no?)…then the issue boils down to; what is the most efficient and economical way of going about this?
I may agree that the way the US army is funded and operates, may be far from efficient. I agree that it needs serious reform, and to try any way we can to infuse it with free-market competitive principles. That doesn’t mean…military is evil, state is evil, aggression can be WISHED away.
Thanks for playing.
You don’t even know what aggression is, what can I do with you? This is why I long ago gave up making much of an effort. I won’t even give you any links.
“on most occasions, use it to help victims of oppression.”
Wow, I think I may ralph. Sorry to disturb you, I see now how thoroughly gone you are.
And your masters’ thank their lucky stars for your playing, chummmmmmm…p.
The real question is, how hard do I have to squint to “wish it all away”?
Self defense does not equal aggression (hope that’s clear).
Of course, there are times when self defense is required. On the global stage, we have one choice – the US military. I guess you could point to UN forces, but that’s really mostly the US (at least doing the heavy lifting). So, what do we do when, say, the US military is not effective (jaw dropping gasps!!!)? We have no other choice because we were stolen from to grow the size of our military to monster proportions, spreading us around the globe and making us ineffective. We can’t simply fire the military – no President will ever do that, and couldn’t if he wanted to do so. So, we are stuck with what we have, no matter what. With a bunch of private security forces or militias, we could pick and choose what we needed (they would likely specialize) to protect ourselves. This is the fundamental problem with one, large military force.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4
interesting that madeleine albright doesn’t seem to contest the accusation of increased infant mortality resulting from us sanctions.
Interesting that neither do I.
To add more to that, while I sympathize with libertarian views on nations not sticking their noses into other nations business, perhaps this may be too simplistic an approach, if it is to be used as a “blanket rule”. We are not dealing with a simple issue of a country wanting to do its “own thing” here, and the US just meddling in their affairs. We are dealing with a country whose specified goal is the exportation of terrorism, blackmailing its neighbors, and holding hostage their well being, and I’m not talking even about Israel here, but about EVERY country around Iran…which is gravely threatened. Iran certainly has presented and represents a survival threat to multiple countries around itself (starting from Yemen, Saudi, UAE, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon etc).
Now libertarian thinking is, if you ain’t hurting nobody else, nobody ought to be hurting you. Agreed. But here we have an actual…criminal…trying to hurt you. Maybe not you, but trying to hurt your “friends”. Is it in your interest, and in the interest of your friends, and even from a moralistic point of view (even though morals never make good argumentation points), “ok” to just sit back and say “what right do I have to mess with them”?
This isn’t Bhutan saying “we wish to be a Budhist country”. This is a violent, murderous regime that has on many occasions threatened the survival of other nations, and made it clear that its goals are to threaten their survival.
I don’t think military action might be the best approach here, or one that would even work.
But I do diverge from SOME libertarians who may want to apply a “blanket rule” on all interventions in international affairs. “Liberal” philosophy since the American Revolution has always been that violence is deplorable, except to prevent or punish violence. The same holds true, in my opinion, in international affairs.
with “friends” like saudi arabia, yemen, afghanistan…
Well, that doesn’t mean we should prefer Iran to take over Yemen, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. The point is, Iran is an aggressive criminal…if we dilute it down to terms of law enforcement.
other peoples’ business. don’t go there.
also, anthropomorphizing the state is not helpful.
If your neighbor from next door, who you hate cause he lets his dog pi** on your flowers, and he steals your newspaper every morning, who takes your parking spot every evening, whom you’ve been in fights with…is being strangled to death by a murderer in his home…do you apply the same disciplined “its other people’s business” approach?
Well then I hope I’m not a neighbor of yours.
No one is saying that voluntarily helping other people is wrong – just not required. Don’t create the guilty bystander.
I’m not saying it is “required”. Certainly not. The question is, is it in “my” interest to help the victim of aggression, even if I may not like the victim, or if it imposes some costs on myself? So it does boil down to a cost-benefit analysis, of whether intervention (in some form) from the US in the case of Iran is beneficial or not. Beneficial to the US, beneficial to other countries, or beneficial to Iran.
My opinion, is that it is. This doesn’t mean that sanctions are the best way, or that they will work (I don’t think they will). Nor war. But this doesn’t mean, then no intervention is a better solution.
The problem “libertarians” have here is that, they may fail to see that failure to act to stop someone who wants the opposite of free markets (Iran), but rather seeks to impose by force market controls, will not lead to positive results for free markets either in the US nor in the rest of the world (Because 40+% of the world’s oil being subject to Iranian military control, is hardly a free market).
So are there cases when the use of force, even if costly, is justifiable and desirable? In my opinion…of course!
Interesting and well written article.In recent years I’ve probably met in the last few years more high level Iranians than most, as a result of the ‘Iranian Oil Bourse’ saga (which was my idea about ten years ago).In Teheran October 2008 – immediately post Lehman – all factions were united in finding it supremely ironic that the financial sanctions aimed at isolating Iran had actually protected Iran from financial contagion.More recently, the elite are actually hoping that US sanctions will enable them to further ration gasoline supply and increase prices, both of which are already Iranian government policy. In this way they may reduce the massive energy subsidies which are crippling them, and address the environmental disaster of air quality so bad that even the crows are leaving Teheran.In other words, Iran will be able to accomplish what they cannot otherwise achieve without riots and insurrection, and they can blame the ‘Great Satan’ . IT and communications sanctions are equally counterproductive: the US and other nations should be flooding Iran with bandwidth, hardware and software.Of course, these sanctions also enable those in control of supply lines, ie the IRGC, to prosper mightily through their extensive financial and trade interests.There are parallels between Iran now and Russia at the fall of Communism. The last vestiges of theocracy disappeared in June 2009, when there was essentially a hostile takeover. The battle is between factions for control of the complex of oil companies now going through a process of privatisation, because that’s where the money is.The US needs smart engagement, rather than dumb sanctions.
I agree on the smart engagement and not dumb sanctions. I disagree, slightly, on the bandwidth issue. There’s nothing preventing Iranian citizens from having free and unlimited access to information from around the world…other then their own government. And frankly, there’s few houses in Tehran that don’t have a satellite dish on their balcony, receiving international channels from many places. If they are blocked (which most aren’t), its their own regime’s responsibility.
There’s little point in attributing every shortcoming in Iran to a US failure to provide these services. While some would argue in one hand, that the US ought not to interfere in the affairs of other countries, they may argue under the same breath that the US should do more to “bombard” them with information.
In my opinion, it boils down to their own regime. And it boils down to the fact that the US SHOULD be engaging them, in any way that can effectively weaken that regime (and effective means in this case, probably don’t include war or sanctions). Thats my own view…which may be in fact tainted by the fact that I am originally from a East European country and I have some first-hand experience of how such regimes may work, and how US pressure in most cases is positive (when viewed from a liberal perspective). That makes me biased. I know.
Ironically, I have the opposite experience. I am from Spain, which originally was sanctioned by most of the productive world (the West, because Spain was one of the last remaining fascist dictatorships in Europe, and the East for the same reason). Spain only liberalized after the United States opened its markets to it. Neither did auturky hurt Franco’s administration as much as liberalization did.
Yes, but that was 22 years before Franco died. Other then his death, I don’t know what had a noticeable influence on decreasing his power. My point is, if the internal regime is bend on doing something, external economic pressures have almost never…worked. Franco was interested in liberalizing…Iran is interested in centralizing economic power.
Well actually I don’t think we are in disagreement. What I said is that US policy usually has positive effects in such cases. You said the same thing. The only difference we may have…is that you assume there is some barrier to US-Iranian trade, other than on a very limited 5% of spectrum which covers military related topics. There’s nothing preventing Iranian companies, or US companies, from doing business with each other. Other than the Iranian regime’s interests.
The problem is that right now this is an unsubstantiated assumption.
Agreed my “percentage” is pulled out of my behind. Its not supposed to be taken on face value. However, US-Iranian trade balances are easily available online. Iranian trade balance overall is easily available as well (I posted it above). In formation on the range of good traded by Iran with Western European, Asia, American companies and whatever you may want, is also readily available.
The question is, WHAT is prohibited under these sanctions? How do any of these products affect the life of the average Iranian? Are the sanctions really prohibiting “trade”? And even if these particular good may be “banned”, does Iran get around such bans quite easily?
What is the driving factor behind oppressive political and economic policies in Iran (assuming there may be a lot of “restrictions” economically…which I’m not ready to assume just yet)? Whats the driving force behind crony-ism and consolidation of businesses in IRGC hands? Is it internal Iranian government oppression…or “America’s fault?”
Leaving ideology behind…you’re an economics student (we’re in similar boats here), and its our duty to look at the FACTS…not try to assume the facts to fit our ideologies (which are, really, the same)
fact: sanctions lower the standard of living both of the citizen of the sanction-imposer, and the citizen of the sanctioned country, whatever other economic impediments may already exist.
The People Of Iran And America Are Harmed By Economic Sanctions.
It is tragic that Iran and America are enemies even though their destinies are so closely linked. It is the perversity and corruption of the ego-driven interventionists and the ego-driven interpreters that bring these two ‘nations’ to near death blows.
Of course sanctions are contrary to peace and well-being and should be abandoned.
Agreed 100%. But I pose this question to you: You might well be well-intentioned, but what if the other guy keeps being an ego-driven Quran interpreter?
I agree that sanctions don’t do anything positive, but what do you do? Or you do nothing at all?
Besides criticism, is there an ALTERNATIVE to be offered here?
let the iranians clean their own house.
Just like we let the Iraqis clean their own house? That didn’t work out so well. Saddam had no trouble getting weapons during the sanctions period. But the Iraqis had terrible problems procuring essential public health supplies.
The only thing keeping the radicals in power in Iran is anti-Americanism. If we were to open up and normalize relations they would have less anger at us, anger with which the anti-American regime is propped up.
The worst thing we could do would be to back the pro-democracy liberal parties. That would ensure them all ending up in prison. (Where they mostly all are now anyway.)
What’s your point? Are you for intervention here or not? Normalize sounds like you aren’t for it here, but that’s all newson seems to be saying but you disagreed with him in your first paragraph.
Sorry. I’m saying two things, not just one thing. It must have come out confusing to you.
First, that sanctions and saber-rattling rarely if ever have any but the opposite effect to the one intended, when it comes to strongly emotional ideological regimes. They serve to marginalize people in-country who might be pro-American, and make them shut up.
The only sanctions program I can recall that worked was the one that helped bring down the old SA apartheid regime. And that was because their economy was increasingly becoming one based on industrial exports, and they badly needed trading partners for the economy to work.
Iran, on the other hand, only needs buyers for its oil. It is far more vulnerable to price fluctuations in that commodity than it is to any other external factor.
My second point is that the Iranian Supreme Council (the holder of all power currently) gains strength from the people’s latent anti-Americanism. Feed that beast by belligerent statements or actions and the regime grows stronger. But starve the beast, by getting all nice and cooperative, and you remove the source of power.
Most people in Iran are way too young to remember the Shah (the reason they began hating us). And it wouldn’t take very long, once we became a trading partner, for them to begin thinking of us as a necessary party in their world. A step up from being the Great Satan, eh?
So I’m all for normalizing. However our handlers, the Israelis, would never stand for any such thing. They’re locked in a death grip with Iran, and would destroy any US politician who uttered a normalizing word on Iran’s behalf. So this thread is just an academic exercise in what we might have done in a different world.
It is long since I have seen such a pile of crap – like some of the comments written here on this board.
Can somebody please tell me what it is that makes the Iranians such “bad guys” that foster a lot of “bad intentions”, and that cannot be entrusted to have their own nuclear weapons?
I mean, if the US have them – and US and the Anglo/American/European western civilization is seen by more than 4 bilion people as “the really bad guys” – why cant Iran have them? Why can Russia China and India and North Koreea have nuclear weapons, but not Iran?
For myself, I couldt care less if they have them or not – if they want to waste their money, time and energy in this way, let them do so.
I dont understand why people are so afraid of a nuclear armed Iran. Are you afraid that they will drop the bomb on you? Why are you not afraid the US will drop the bomb on you? Or Russia, or China or North Koreea?
Lets be serious for a second and realize that in fact what is happening is that the US is searching for an excuse to start another war.
It is important to remember that all of the policies of the US government you have described, while terrible for the US public and especially for the Iranian public, are extremely good policies for the US government and the Iranian government.
The people who control the US government are using their monopoly on power very intelligently and pragmatically. They cause misery around the world, and then offer to wield their tremendous ability to kill and steal as the “solution” to the problems which they caused.
One can expect no less of any “national policy”. To hope for those who wield coercive power to use the power against their own interest, and for the benefit of millions of other people who are complete strangers to them, is futile because human nature has not equipped them to do so. As long as there is a “national policy” there will be hampered trade, theft and murder in proportion to the amount of power possessed by the people who control each nation.
There is nothing which Obama, the serial stooge and affirmative action joke, would like better than to enjoy the bump in prestige and power that comes to any “wartime president”. Just as war brought prestige and power to the drunken frat-boy black sheep of the Bush family. The sheer genius of the Bush regime, like FDR’s, was to make their windfall look entirely unexpected. No doubt Obama would like to give America his own treacherous surprise, but he lacks sufficient control over the security and military apparatus to make it so. That’s why it’s taking so long for Obama and his bumbling Secretary of State to get something going, whereas Bush, Inc. got their first war in under 8 months.
Likewise, the scripture-spouting sad sacks and sourpusses calling themselves clergymen in Iran will enjoy many times more power and perks as long as they can create a wall of hatred between their country and the most powerful country of non-believers. It’s what the respective governments of the USA and Iran would call a win-win situation.
The real war is by the US and Iranian governments against their own people, disguised by a supposed war against each other.
Reminds me of the trade sanctions against Germany before WWII, which perpetually led to a sedistic regime. Good intentions with all the wrong facts.
And what led to the previous sadistic regime, before that one? Point is, its easy to simplify down to one sentence.
To recap a little bit on some of the comments made above. The main problem I see in the comments above is that, for any of them to be true, it requires the ASSUMPTION that the sanctions actually WORK. It requires the assumptions that the sanctions actually block individual free Iranians from performing trade with other countries, and therefore limit their ability to resist their government.
All these assumptions, however, as far as I can tell are completely baseless. Now you may not agree with that, but you have to UNDERSTAND that this isn’t an ideological debate that need to degenerate into a “moral” argument about whether government is bad or good or US is evil or good. That would be an incredibly stupid waste of time.
This is about looking at the facts, and seeing if the facts actually support the assumption that the sanctions, can work. Because if the sanctions can’t work, then none of this matters. Then they are pointless. Then…you’ll have to start pointing the blame somewhere else.
Fact is, the sanctions cover a small part of what is and can be traded by and with Iran. What is blocked, affects the average Iranian in no particular way, in terms of the good available to them, or the goods in which they can trade. If you disagree with this, please DISPROVE IT. I don’t have to prove this, because info on what is banned from US companies to trade with Iran, is EASILY available online, and requires no particular effort to understand.
Second, Iran’s non-oil international trade has not been slowed down one tiny bit by the sanctions. Iranian companies and individuals can and do trade freely with all Western European, Asia, ME etc etc countries. They can and do freely trade on things ranging from flour and cement, to automotive plants (Mercedes, Renault, Volvo and others have busy manufacturing facilities in Iran, for example). Iran’s biggest import parter is Germany. Is biggest export partner is Japan (I’m guessing oil, in their case). But even with the US trade is hardly restricted. It is restricted by geography and by the fact that Iran may not have much to export to the US, or want from the US that it can’t get elsewhere cheaper. It is restricted on those good which have military applications. Agreed. This hardly affects the average Iranian one bit. As the data posted above shows, Iran imported about 680 million dollars worth of good from the US in 2008.
Now if any of you have some EVIDENCE to show that, indeed, trade (except in military items), is restricted to Iran, then by all means please present your evidence. Statements like “fact: sanctions are bad so therefore they are bad”, aren’t arguments. Sanctions are bad only if they work. Otherwise, they are pointless.
Third, the assumption that the Iranian Middle Class is held back from advancing its political agenda because of US sanctions, which limit its ability to grow in influence and therefore exert political pressure, is entirely BASELESS and is ignoring all the internal factors of what is going in Iran. That is unforgivable…and clearly in my opinion that is driven by a POLITICAL agenda some people may have here (my apologies to anyone who doesn’t fit into this category). The Iranian middle class is “held back” in its economic and political interests from its OWN governmental crony-ism which seeks to centralize industrial and trade activity into the hands of its own members. This is as CLASSICAL of a “third-world” problem as it can get, and it is neither hurt nor helped by US policy, because there’s NO WAY US policy can affect this. If the government there is hell bend on accumulating personal wealth for its own members at the expense of everyone else, it will.
Simply making the theoretical and ideological argument that, if the middle class could grow more important in influence, then it would weaken the power of the regime, is all great except that it doesn’t say HOW this is going to happen? If the opposition to this is internal force, and not external pressure?
Furthermore, on the “middle class” here. There’s no particular evidence to suggest here that what we are seeing in Iran is a drive for liberal democracy, or some sort of free-market economy. You are ignoring the hundreds of other groups who are players in the power struggles in Iran, and deciding to focus on “the students”.
Coming from a country that has gone through similar upheavals in the past, focusing on “the students” and ASSUMING that they represent the driving force or the ideology of the movement, can be a very very dangerous thing to do. For an outsider. And I don’t claim to have the answer to whether it is so or not. But one ought to be very careful here, and take all factors into consideration (which include ethnic, religious and business interests of the people involved). I have severe reservations, looking at people like Mousavi or Rafsanjani as the “leaders” of the Green Movement. These two men are old old Islamic Revolution henchmen, with massive wealth accumulated through crony-ism, with a vested interest in maintaining the system, and at lest one of them has executed thousands of people in the 1980s in the name of the Revolution.
Simply because one may have a political agenda against the US (which, undoubtedly, some of you here may have for unspecified reasons), doesn’t mean this makes the Iranian regime, or their opponents, worthy of “support”.
Fourth, the argument that “well why is Iran a threat and why can’t they have the bomb if they so wish it?”. Iran is not a threat to the US. That much is clear. But that doesn’t matter. Iran has as its expressed interest, the spread of its Islamic Revolution throughout the Muslim world. Iran DOES so actively. Iran (and Syria, its proxy state), exports its brand of terrorism to Lebanon. It exports its brand of terrorism to Yemen. It exports its brand of terrorism to Iraq. It exports it to Afghanistan. It has as its specified aim the destruction and destabilization of Lebanon, of Yemen, of Palestine, and of putting under its theological control most of the Gulf nations. It seeks to hold HOSTAGE the fates of all the gulf nations through its military power.
You may agree with absolutely NONE of those countries listed above. It doesn’t matter one bit. It is an aggressive criminal state which does not seek “self-defense” and does not seek “coexistance”. It seeks to control the Muslim world.
This is no situation in which any “libertarian”, or freedom-loving person in the world, ought to say “Well so what? Let them do whatever they want”. Defense of freedom is not a SELECTIVE process, which may disagree with your tastes when the US does it (as opposed to?? oh wait,,nobody else ever has done sh** to defend anyone else’s freedom in the past 100 years…except the US and the possible exception of the Ausies. Evil evil). When a violent criminal threatens to take your rights and freedoms away, or those of your neighbors, you react against them.
You may not agree that the Iranian regime is such a threat. But perhaps you may be wrong. Perhaps you ought to ask a Lebanese.
But now I’m getting into a “moral” and “ideological” argument, and I find those to be entirely a waste of time.
PS: Yes I know 4 billion people are supposed to hate America. Well sorry to break it to you guys…contrary to popular belief, thats as BS as one can get. You guys have a severe self-hating problem. I can see why you may have a complex “against the US government”. In classical liberal and economic terms, its far from a well-adjusted machine. Economic arguments can be made endlessly about it. But some of you seem to not want to understand the General Theory of Relativity
No not Einstein’s one…but the one that says that everything is relative. The US government may be a big spender that takes your pot away, but RELATIVE to the governments 4 billion people in the world live under, in their eyes the US (primarily the US, its government only as a result) is a far more attractive alternative and a far less intrusive and more positive force, then if left to the affairs of their own governments.
You may not BELIEVE this. I can’t expect how some of you would. All info in America would make one believe that 4 billion people in the world are all so eager to hate Americans for killing their babies and eating their grilled cheese sandwiches. I wonder why EVERYONE wants to COME HERE then?
But please, don’t insult 4 billion people with some tired old ridiculous Leftist garbage, without putting a moment’s thought into it. “I hate my politician therefore I’ll hate everything this nation stands for! waa waaa anarchims!” Now I’m getting pissed…and frankly insulted.
And one more thing. A lot of people simply wish to assume that all sanctions are the same, that all have the same effect, or that all equally effective! Or that all are even equally as expansive.
The arguments of Iraq, Cuba, etc etc, are not necessarily convincing arguments at all. The question is, WHAT is banned from trade, and with WHOM is it banned, and how effectively can it be ENFORCED?
If the sanctions on Iraq included food stuff, it doesn’t equate that sanctions of Iraq = sanctions of Iran…when in Iran what is banned is military equipment. Nobody is going to starve from the lack of missiles. (not that the sanctions will, in fact, stop the flow of missiles).
Germany, South Africa etc etc. Again, look at the specific circumstances of each one. None are remotely similar. None have the same effect.
Now there’s little argument from me that the sanctions on Iran are counterproductive and pointless and a waste of money. I DO think it may make sense for the US government to restrict military products from reaching Iran, from its own companies and those of other nations that want to cooperate. But thats as far as that goes…
Man, you are so full of this “american pride” shit, you cant see the black hole your “great and generous” government has gotten you into.
I’am not american, and I have no wish to come to your fucked up country. I’m unhappy enough in my own.
Coming to America is for stupid people – and as far as I can see the latest craze for smart people is to leave America while they still can.
You and people like you make me sick – and I am not musulman or not even arab, not that this would be something bad – with your righteus voices and your maladive desire to “heal” us all from all over the world, whether we like it or not .
Your sir, are a shame for the american people, for the average american which seems to be sort of a nice likeable and hard working man.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but I’m not American either
So there goes your theory out the window. Try harder next time.
That was meant for Baten above. Oh and one more thing, don’t take this the wrong way but you have no clue what you are talking about. It doesn’t take a lot to see the immigration patterns and where the “brain” flow is going towards. Its flowing in the same direction its always flowed in for the past 200 years. And why is that? For the same reasons its been happening for the past 200 years. Relative to everyone else, the US still maintains a far freer and far more competitive economy.
If one can’t differentiate between legitimate concerns, complaints and limitations (which are always there), and relative differences with other systems, then one hardly qualifies for the title of “smart people” . Hippies and yuppies moving to Paris on daddy’s money because they don’t like Bush…hardly qualifies as “smart people” or “latest craze”. The “latest craze” is a flood of brains from India and China and Eastern Europe…into America.
This isn’t intended to be “pro-American” in any sort. Its just fact, and its just intended to show the ridiculousness of the self-hating or “America-hating” complexes of people who…may…have legitimate concerns.
Comments on this entry are closed.