The Trouble With Sanctions

"We should privatize the sanctions against Iran by launching a worldwide divestment campaign," John McCain said in his AIPAC speech, "As more people, businesses, pension funds, and financial institutions across the world divest from companies doing business with Iran, the radical elite who run that country will become even more unpopular than they are already." And then down comes Sam Stein pointing out that McCain's top strategist Charlie Black has been lobbying on behalf of Iran-linked firms:

But, as demonstrated by the CNOOC anecdote, if choking off Tehran's economic lifeblood is McCain's goal, he could have personally started down that road years ago -- with his own advisers.

But beyond the narrow hypocrisy point, the real moral of the story here is just to remind us of the limited practicality of a sanctions and divestment approach to Iran. In a highly globalized economy, it's difficult to try to hermetically seal off Iran economically. You start divesting from firms that do business with Iran, but then you still have firms that do business with firms that do business with Iran. Divest all you like, but Iran still has oil that people want to buy, which gives Iranians money they want to use to buy things with. Which isn't to say that economic pressure is totally ineffective, but how effective it is has a lot to do with how wide the network of pressuring entities is. A really global sanctions and divestment campaign can deliver enormous blows, while unilateral measures are difficult to really enforce in a serious way.

This is one of several reasons why there needs to be a good-faith negotiations component to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program. On the one hand, we ought to recognize the limited utility of coercion alone in changing Iranian behavior. And on the other hand, as we seek coercive measures, or credible threats of coercion, we need to make the coercing coalition as broad as possible and to do that we need to be seen by world opinion as approaching this subject in a serious way. Ultimately, international consensus against the idea of an Iranian nuclear weapon is the only way to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and to preserve and strengthen that consensus we need to act reasonably. Ideally, reasonable U.S. behavior will be met by reasonable Iranian behavior. If it's not, then reasonable U.S. behavior will set the stage for international cooperation that, unlike the all-bluster approach favored by conservatives, might actually accomplish something.

Comments

The real trick is to say what Matt says here and yet oppose the Bush administration's policy on Iran.

Posted by Thomas | June 2, 2008 6:21 PM

Matt is right in that international cooperation is needed to pressure Iran. The problem is that the Bush/McCain approach has burned our bridges and strained relations with other countries so as not be able to get so much cooperation.

A President Obama would be able to get so much more international cooperation on Iran and so many other fronts than McCain could dream of that this reason alone merits Obama's election.

Posted by cm | June 2, 2008 6:24 PM

Why is the hypocrisy point "narrow?" Looks wide and deep to me.

Posted by Garuda | June 2, 2008 6:52 PM

One major problem with getting global support for sanctions to get Iran to stop its nuclear program is that we don't actually know whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Currently Iran is working on the production of fuel for nuclear reactors. If those efforts are successful, that would make it significantly easier for Iran to produced weapons grade material at some point in the future. There are also disputes between the IAEA and Iran over Iran's past nuclear activities. This raises the possibility that Iran has conducted research into the design of a nuclear weapon, and is holding onto the results of that research.

The notion that Iran is working on a nuclear weapon is speculation--informed speculation, to be sure--but speculation.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | June 2, 2008 7:04 PM

Sanctions are a curious thing. It seems to me that they can work, as demonstrated with South Africa's Apartheid regime. Or even to a degree with Libya.

You do have to set out a specific goal of what you want from them.

I think where they fail, is when you have a nation where the ruler doesn't really give a crap. Witness Cuba or North Korea, even Iraq.

And they really fail, when you need them more than they need you. Such, I fear, is the case with Iran. The only sanctions one can oppose against them which will have any impact is to stop buying their oil.

But the world market needs oil now more than ever.

Posted by The Other Steve | June 2, 2008 7:15 PM

Pace Matthew, divestment from Iran was actually a big issue for Obama in the Senate:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following statement after the House of Representatives passed the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act (H.R. 2347/S. 1430), legislation he sponsored in May. The bill would clear the way for more states to divest their pension funds from companies that support Iran's oil and gas industry. Iran uses the revenue it generates from its energy sector to finance its pursuit of nuclear weapons and support for terrorist groups.

The statement is below:

“Today's passage of the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act by the House of Representatives is an important step forward in our efforts to stop Iran from acquiring the nuclear weapons it seeks. Allowing a radical theocracy that sponsors terrorism and threatens its neighbors to possess such dangerous weapons is a risk we cannot afford to take.”

“Together with our allies, we need to do much more to ratchet up the economic pressure on Iran, in order to convince it not to go down this road. In addition to a sustained diplomatic effort and stronger international sanctions, we have the ability to take more action unilaterally. Citizens in many states have taken matters into their own hands, moving to divest their pension funds of companies that support Iran's oil and gas industry, which provides the revenue Iran uses to pursue nuclear weapons and sponsor terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.”

“Since I introduced this legislation in May, along with Chairman Barney Frank in the House, Florida has enacted a divestment law, the Illinois legislature has passed a divestment bill that awaits the governor's signature, and California is moving in the same direction. Many other states are at various stages of this process.”

“The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, once enacted, will provided needed information about which companies are supporting Iran's energy industry, clarify that state and local governments have the authority to divest of such companies, and provide legal protection for those governments that wish to do so.”

“I am very encouraged by this important step forward in our campaign to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. I will work closely with the Senate leadership and my colleagues to get this bill passed and to the President's desk as quickly as possible.”

Sam Brownback was Obama's lead co-sponsor.

Posted by southpaw | June 2, 2008 7:27 PM

I just don't see sanctions. Hillary said it best when she spoke of obliterating Iran and I wholeheartedly concur. When you have megalomaniacal maniacs who won't listen to reason, force is the language of choice.

Posted by Tim K | June 2, 2008 8:01 PM

Senator Osama is a dangerous appeaser who does not understand that sometimes force is the only language that opponents understand.

"Rules of International Engagement for Leftists masquerading as Liberals
By Barry Rubin June 2, 2008

Engagement doesn't always produce marriage. In the U.S.-Iran case, diplomatic engagements have been repeatedly disastrous. Yet many think the idea of engagement was just invented and never tried.

1. President John Kennedy pressed Iran for democratic reforms in the early 1960s.. The Shah responded with his White Revolution which horrified traditionalists and moved them to active opposition. One of them was named Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

2. President Richard Nixon urged Iran in the early 1970s, under the Nixon Doctrine, to become a regional power since America was overextended in Vietnam. The Shah embarked on a huge arms-buying campaign and close alliance stirring more opposition and fiscal strain, contributing to unrest.

3. In the late 1970s, President Jimmy Carter pushed Iran to ease restrictions. The result was Islamist revolution. Next, Carter urged the Shah not to repress the uprising, helping bring his downfall.

4. After the 1979 revolution, Carter engaged the new regime to show Khomeini that America was his friend. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, today advising Barack Obama, met Iranian leaders. Tehran interpreted this engagement as an effort to subvert or co-opt the revolution, so Iranians seized the U.S. embassy and took everyone there hostage.

5. The Reagan administration secretly engaged Iran in the mid-1980s to help free U.S. hostages of its terrorism. Result: a policy debacle and free military equipment for Iran.

6. In recent years there was a long engagement in which European states negotiated for themselves and America to get Tehran to stop its nuclear weapons' drive. Iran gained four years to develop nukes; the West got nothing.

The history of U.S. engagement with the PLO and Syria is similar. The Oslo era (1992-2000) was engagement as disaster, establishing a PLO regime indifferent to its people's welfare, increasing radicalism and violence, with no gain for peace. Aside from the worsened security problem, Israel's international image was badly damaged by concessions made and risks taken. America's making the PLO a client brought it no gratitude or strategic gain.

Similarly, Syria used the 1991-2000 engagement era to survive its USSR superpower sponsor's collapse while doing everything it wanted: dominating Lebanon, sponsoring terrorism, and sabotaging peace. U.S. secretaries of state visited Damascus numerous times and achieved nothing, a process that continued up to 2004. Syria first helped Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, then sponsored terrorists who disrupted Iraq and killed Americans.

There have, of course, been successful engagements -- but not with Iran, Syria, or the PLO. The most successful was Egypt's turnaround by Nixon and Kissinger. A partial success was changing Libya's behavior. In those two cases, American power, not compassion, achieved success. Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi and Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat ("America holds 99 percent of the cards") knew they were weak and needed to stop America from hitting them hard.

Engagements, of course, have effects other than direct success. One is to buy time for someone. But who? If one party subverts other states, builds nuclear weapons, demoralizes the other's allies, and sponsors terrorism during talks while the other side?just talks, the first side benefits far more.

Second, if one side gets the other to make concessions to prove good faith and keep talks going, that side benefits. Keeping engagement going becomes an end in itself as the weaker side uses a diplomatic version of asymmetric warfare to make gains.

Finally, while using talks to deescalate tensions apparently benefits everyone, matters are not so simple. By talking, a stronger side can throw away its leverage. The weaker side does not have to back down to avoid confrontation.

So engagement, without pressure or threat, benefits the weaker side. If the stronger side is eager to reach agreement, the weaker side has more leverage. The advantage is transferred from the strongest side to the most intransigent one. Here, Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah have the upper hand.

Senator Obama doesn't understand these points. To see how alien a normal liberal concept of foreign policy is for him, note what he could have said:

"America must be strong to protect its interests, values, and friends against ruthless adversaries. But if America is strong, it can also be flexible. Let us engage countries and leaders by telling them clearly our demands and goals. Once Iran understands the United States will counter its threats of genocide against Israel, involvement in terrorism against Americans, and threats to our interests it may back down. If Iran gives up its extremism, we are ready to offer friendship. But if Iran remains extremist we will quickly abandon engagement and never hesitate to respond appropriately."

This way, a leader shows he knows how to use both carrots and sticks. But Obama has never said anything like this. He has no concept of toughness as a necessary element in flexibility, or of deterrence as a precondition to conciliation. Nor does he indicate that he would be steadfast if engagement failed. He defines no U.S. preconditions for meeting or conditions for agreement. He offers to hear Iran's grievances but says nothing about American grievances.

Radical Islamists interpret this strategy as weakness of which they will take full advantage. That's why Iran, Syria, and Hamas favor Obama. Thus spoke Lebanese cleric Muhammad Abu al-Qat on Hizballah's al-Manar television on May 10: "The American empire will very soon collapse?.This won't happen as a result of war?.An American Gorbachev will surface in America, and he will destroy this empire.

Islamists and radicals want Obama because they understandably expect him to play into their hands. By the same token, more moderate Arab regimes and observers are horrified.

Obama is so scary and is accused of appeasement not because he wants to meet enemies in person but because he doesn't want to meet them in struggle. He doesn't know how international politics work through power, threats, deterrence, self-interest, and credibility. He doesn't comprehend that totalitarian ideologies cannot be moderated by apology or weakness.

Whatever you think of Senator John McCain, he understands these basic concepts. That's why he's a centrist who can be trusted to protect American national interests. Whatever you think of Senator Hillary Clinton, she understands these basic concepts. That's why she's a liberal who can be trusted to protect American national interests. And that's why Obama is both a dangerously naive amateur and a leftist posing as a liberal."

Posted by SLC | June 2, 2008 8:05 PM

The real problem is that sanctions meant to hurt the general economy have a poor record of inciting regime change even when they manage to hurt the economy in the first place.

Unlike the US, some of the rest of the world actually knows this.

You will only get backing from the international community for sanctions that mainly target the regime.

Barack Obama might get some more license because of his awesomeness. But not much. The days when an American president could walk to a negotiating table and just pledge Europe and some other vassals are over.

Posted by nanne | June 2, 2008 8:23 PM

The article by Barry Rubin posted by SLC did not really prove things one way or the other about engaging Iran in the current circumstance. The issue in the current circumstance is not whether or not engaging Iran will work to get Iran to do whatever we want but whether it will produce a result better than the status quo or than other options for dealing with them.

Examples 1-3 are totally irrelevant because in those cases we made the mistake of engaging Iran to get them to do what we thought they should do when we ought to have left them alone. In none of these cases was the engagement an attempt to head off a military conflict with Iran; and the better alternative was simply to let Iran be. These instances show the wisdom of a non-interventionist policy.

Example 4 was a bad event, but I doubt that an invasion or a bombing campaign would have yielded results that were less disastrous, if the reason for the enggement were to avoid a military conflict. Moreover, our intervention against Mossadeq in the 50s is largely to blame for Iran's decision to take over the embassy.

Example 5 - yes, a policy debacle, and military equipment for Iran, but the hostages were freed. The mission was a success; moreso than I suspect any military action would have been (and definitely mroe than any of the actions we attempted actually were).

Example 6 is only true if Iran is actually pursuing a nuclear weapon, and moreover, what engagement with Europe gets Iran does not really mean much in terms of what engagement with the US wil get Iran, seeing as we have the biggest conflict with them and Iran and the US (and Israel, too, I suppose) are the countries with the most to lose from any likely conflict that breaks out.

Posted by Glaivester | June 2, 2008 8:47 PM

Perhaps McCain could follow up by stating that as President, he would pursue Halliburton and its executives for any and all income from activities the broke the letter and/or intent of the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (ILSA).

Posted by cmholm | June 2, 2008 9:00 PM

One is to buy time for someone. But who? If one party subverts other states, builds nuclear weapons, demoralizes the other's allies, and sponsors terrorism during talks while the other side?just talks, the first side benefits far more.

The funny thing is that our current status quo policy of refusing to negotiate with Iran is what's actually buying them time to work on nuclear weapons. People living in pathetic power fantasies like Bush, McCain, SLC, and Barry Rubin don't get this. See here.

There's a stupider point here. The idea of "credibility" goes both ways. Saddam Hussein was prepared to disarm Iraq. We toppled his regime anyway. That doesn't leave much incentive for other countries to disarm themselves. And also leaves no reason for other countries to cooperate with you. And imposing any penalty on Iran involves cooperating with Europe, Russia, and China whether or not that's compatible with your foolish arrogance. Oh! Good news, McCain plans to make it his policy to intentionally alienate China and Russia. Which means he will be utterly powerless to stop any Iranian nuke threat.

It's true that one must be prepared to walk away from the negotiating table if your opponent isn't operating in good faith. Which is why it's dangerous how Bush and McCain are letting Maliki lead us around by the nose--they are so committed to staying in Iraq at all costs that they have absolutely no leverage with him, and now he's using our military power to keep his opponents out of the elections--which will only inspire future violence. A willingness to walk away from failed negotiations is something Obama and Clinton understand, but McCain does not. His understanding of how power works is just too crude.

Posted by Consumatopia | June 2, 2008 9:11 PM

I've often thought the sanction avenue of changing behavior should be tried here in the U.S. I don't overtly pry into the poltical affiliations of the various persons I do business with on a daily basis. However, there are subtle ways during friendly conversation to gain such knowledge. Once I discover anyone, whether the dry cleaner, frame shop, garage, florist or any of dozens of others is owned or run by a committed Republican I stop doing business with them. I also encourage others to do the same. Starve the beast. We're dealing with a deranged, evil and mentally sick party. Those proudly a member should be shunned at all costs. Don't give them your money, it could end up supporting McCain and others wanting to strip you of your civil and reproductive rights. It will support those wanting to start preemptive, illegal wars. DO NOT PATRONIZE REPUBLICAN OWNED OR OPERATED BUSINESSES.

Posted by steve duncan | June 2, 2008 9:24 PM

The reality is that DIVESTMENT is exactly what finally broke the apartheid government. I think we should discuss the potentials of divestment in many of the situations we'd like to change. The idea isn't to talk about what a bad idea or how impossible divestment from Iran is, but what policies would be best.

The specific nature of South Africa and the ways the government was perpetuated by the corporate structure opened it up to collapse when the companies-weakened by divestment-withdrew their support. Divestment is a viable, peaceful solution. We just have to know if it might work. Never underestimate the power of financial ethics to effect social change. For instance, I attended a conference where I heard a presentation which discussed divestment, among other ways that people can make social choices with their everyday habits. The professor cited that consumer awareness had reduced the presence of conflict diamonds on the market from 12% to 4%. I've had trouble finding her citation. But, the diamond industry claims a 99% conflict-free market, which is not believable, considering that there's more to conflict than outright civil war. But the truth remains that if consumers (including the financial market) are aware of where their money is going, big things can happen.

Posted by brenna | June 2, 2008 9:48 PM

Overlay a template of shock doctrine, and it seems like sanctions create opportunity for price gouging and profiteering.

Just what Republicans like.

Posted by zic | June 2, 2008 10:02 PM

We already have some sanctions on Iran and Dick Cheney broke them. Something that got lost in the run up to the war, everyone agreed that the UN oil-for-medicine thing didn't work, but the US was the largest violator. Heck, Halliburton has formed offshore front companies so they don't have to pay US taxes - during a WAR. So let's not pretend that our corporate leaders will do anything that cuts into their profits.

Posted by Phaedrus | June 2, 2008 10:14 PM

I have been thinking quite a bit about talking vs bombing Iran, and overwhelmingly it seems that talking to Iran with a combination of carrots and sticks is the best approach. My fear however, is that we will end up in a situation where Iran violates whatever terms we agree upon and gets a nuclear weapon. Now, I understand the concept of deterrents and why Iran will never attack Israel, but what I don't understand is what incentive will Iran have not to give nuclear secrets (or weapons) to terrorist organizations, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad ect. It seems that stateless entities with nuclear weapons could not really be deterred and would be far more likely to use them. Does anybody have any thoughts about this. It is my major hangup with the argument that we should not go balls to the wall to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons.

Posted by angryhippopotamus | June 2, 2008 10:30 PM

Mccain's proposal is neat, because it gives us exactly what it is against American interest to do, all in a nutshell.
Rather, we should be negotiating to do business with Iran in a big way. They have excellent oil and natural gas supplies, and we have a need for cheaper oil. They can pay, and they can balance Saudi Arabia, which is an alliance that has given infinite trouble to the U.S., as well as the one country that has helped kill more americans - the 3,000 on 9/11, the 3,000 soldiers killed in the Iraq war by the Sunni insurgents.

We have every reason to be friendly with Iran - much more so than we have reason to be friendly with Pakistan, say. Detente, lifting business sanctions, the whole nine yards. As for Iran's nuclear power program - well, we should propose a nuclear free Middle East, including Israel, and see who bites for it.

Posted by roger | June 2, 2008 11:05 PM

McCain doesn't want diplomatic engagement...he wants war. If you read his thinking through the years, he is convinced the only way to overcome the problems in the Middle East is through war, and by extension, empire.

That is what is so scary...he is literally going to take us to war in Iran if elected...count on it. And he doesn't care about the political cost...see his stubbornness on Iraq.

If you think Iraq is a mess, then imagine Iran if we start a war there.

Why do you think McCain wants to keep everyone in the military instead of giving them proper college benefits? He needs the bodies to fight his war.

McCain is far more of a neocon than Bush ever was. Be afraid of McCain...very afraid.

Posted by cm | June 2, 2008 11:13 PM

Now, I understand the concept of deterrents and why Iran will never attack Israel, but what I don't understand is what incentive will Iran have not to give nuclear secrets (or weapons) to terrorist organizations, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad ect.

The same reason that we don't give nuclear weapons to the Mujahideen al-Khalq or to the Iraqi National Congress. States with nukes generally don't go around giving them to terrorist groups who might one day decide that they are ot pure enough and use them on their benefactors.

Plus, a terrorist group associated with Iran blowing up a bomb would not make it difficult to figure out whose bomb it was. The Iranian government is not made up of suicidal people.

Posted by Glaivester | June 2, 2008 11:22 PM

Consumatopia - The idea of "credibility" goes both ways. Saddam Hussein was prepared to disarm Iraq. We toppled his regime anyway.

Rank ignorance. Saddam continued missile development and told his American and Iraqi interrogators that (confirmed by interviews with other Ba'athist Inner Circle) that the Plan was to end Sanctions by 2002 through bribes to Arab, African, European, Russian, and UN officials. Then go full out for a nuclear and missile program to match the Persian's program and make the Zionists think twice...Also recover a full chem warfare capacity, while saying his strengthened Islamic faith had convinced him that anthrax and other biowar was wrong and evil so he wouldn't have restarted that if Sanctions ended.
9/11 and the US effort to end talk of dropping sanctions screwed his plans.
Saddam actually begged the Iraqi Shiites questioning him to pick up the ball and go all out to get missiles and nuclear bombs after they threw the "Crusaders" out. Saddam told them - "we bled together against the Great Persian Enemy as fellow Arabs!"

That doesn't leave much incentive for other countries to disarm themselves. And also leaves no reason for other countries to cooperate with you.

No, the lesson is that you defy UN Resolutions enough on disarming and the US or another power then has the pretext and will to do a number on your regime - yes, the US or other attacker might be hated for a few years - but your regime is ended, your lands and wealth largely disappear, your will be hunted down or live in uncomfortable exile, and many will be killed by vengeful countrymen vigilante-style or by formal hanging verdicts.
The incentive to disarm is still there - it is cold comfort to know as the noose goes around your neck that the people who brought you down may be disliked by the usual suspects - but they will continue to live and prosper after your perdition.

And imposing any penalty on Iran involves cooperating with Europe, Russia, and China whether or not that's compatible with your foolish arrogance.

Crap. You don't need "China's cooperation" or the World's Conscience at the UN to penalize Iran. THey are already suffering severe economic damage on other nations blocking aviation, high tech gear, computer controls, and electronic, precision manufacturing goods because everyone pretty much agrees that Iran is a state sponsor of terror. And everyone is now going after their financial structure due to terror issues. Despite their oil wealth, the damage to Iran's economy is significant and growing. Also, Iran is in growing danger of neighbors shutting off flow of goods in and out of Iran in a crisis. They are not on "good terms" with anybody..and while goods still would flow if their paths in Azerbajan, Turkey, the Sunni Baluchis and Gulf States - not to mention Iraq - were stopped. They could block the oil at the Straight of Homuz, but only as long as the month it took to obliterate Irans entire Air Force, Navy and any ground units within 100 km of the Gulf.

Oh! Good news, McCain plans to make it his policy to intentionally alienate China and Russia. Which means he will be utterly powerless to stop any Iranian nuke threat.

Oh, really! Only a Lefty clueless of the military and how WMD Iran threats would be disposed of believes that China or Russia would militarily intervene in a conventional or nuclear strike to eliminate such an Iranian threat. Perhaps you think that anyone is OK to build nuke bombs and ICBMs as long as one member of the Security Council vetoes other nations acting to defend themselves from such a threat...and they will passively accept whatever bribed Chinese or Russians demand..
Only in Lefty fantasyland.

Posted by chris ford | June 2, 2008 11:46 PM

The Europeans are way ahead if us guys - they're divesting and putting sanctions on Apartheid Israel. Recognizing that it (not peaceful Iran) is the real Terrorist State threatening to launch all of its 150 Nukes on all the other anti-Semitic goyim countries of the world. (92% of the World to Israel)

Solving the Conflict over Palestine is probably at least as intractable as the Conflict over Slavery was in the 19th century.

In http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/08/last-word-on-anti-semitism.html , I argue the following.

The issue of Palestine is simply an ethical nobrainer

1. Zionism is racist because it presupposes that the ethnic, national or historical rights of Jews to Palestine are superior to the human rights of the native population. That is racism plain and simple.

2. Racist Eastern European colonists stole the country from the native population.

3. Their crime spans 3 centuries.

Zionists have not changed their song and dance since the 1890s when Herzl was arguing that the Jewish settlement could serve as a colonial surrogate population for the British Empire. Israeli spokesmen, American Zionists and Neocons argue that the State of Israel should serve the same role in an American Imperium today.

I am not going to banter with trivialities. Palestinians are the native population of Palestine.

Racist Eastern Europeans colonized Palestine and stole it.

All the textual, historical, archeological, and linguistic data indicates that Ashkenazim are an indigenous Eastern European population with practically no ancestral connection to Palestine (just like other Eastern Europeans) while Palestinians are the descendants of the Greco-Roman Judean population of Palestine. Zionists merely justify their crimes in the way that German Racists and Nazis justified their crimes by mythological primordialist nonsense. But suppose Ashkenazim were descended from Greco-Roman Judeans of some sort (at least 3/4s of Greco-Roman Judeans lived outside Palestine). So what? Vienna was founded 2000 years ago by Celts. Do the modern Irish have a legitimate claim to the modern city?

Zionism in the 21st century is the ethical equivalent of Slavery in the 19th century.

Racist Eastern Europeans stole Palestine by means of force, terrorism, aggression, murder and violence. Slavers stole Africans out of the homes by means of force, terrorism, aggression, murder and violence.

Racist Zionist colonizers hold onto the country that they stole by means of force, terrorism, aggression, murder and violence. Slavery was maintained by means of force, terrorism, aggression, murder and violence.

Categorical opposition to Zionism is the defining issue of peace and justice in the 21st century. 300 million Arabs, 1.2 billion Muslims, most of Europe, the Far East and Latin American cannot take any American seriously when he asserts a commitment to peace and justice unless he demands the eradication of Zionism in the ME just as Abolitionists demanded the categorical and unequivocal eradication of slavery.

Anyone that supports or is willing to tolerate Zionism is a racist. Racist American Zionists, Neocons, and Apocalyptic Evangelical Fundamentalists have formed an alliance against peace and justice on the basis of commitment to the maintenance of a racist Zionist colony in Palestine. When I watch how this alliance is driving the USA to betray fundamental American principles, I consider this alliance and Zionist/Neocon subversion a menace to me as an American.

The house is divided between two irreconcilable ideologies. One ideology is committed to American ideals, peace, justice, democracy and human rights; the other supports racist, genocidal, undemocratic, colonialism in ME and will destroy the fundamental principles of the USA to maintain the Zionist colony. A house so divided cannot stand.

Within 30 years we Americans will fight a civil war on this issue.

By American standards terrorism against Israelis is completely justified, for Israelis are the ethical equivalent of antebellum Southerners and Slavers. Just think Nat Turner or John Brown. Any Zionist colonizer that does not actively fight against Zionism is complicit and shares guilt by American standards.

Posted by: Joachim Martillo | June 02, 2008 at 08:32 AM

Posted by Trevor | June 3, 2008 12:15 AM

I think we are misunderstanding McCain. I don't think McCain intends divestment to be used as a tool to extract specific concessions from Iran. Especially without engaging in diplomacy with the actual leadership of Iran, divestment wouldn't work this way. Instead, divestment for McCain is yet another weapon in the campaign of rogue state rollback. Without a specific goal in mind aside from toppling the political leadership, it seems very likely to backfire.

Posted by StJoe | June 3, 2008 1:07 AM

what incentive will Iran have not to give nuclear secrets (or weapons) to terrorist organizations, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad ect. It seems that stateless entities with nuclear weapons could not really be deterred and would be far more likely to use them. Does anybody have any thoughts about this. It is my major hangup with the argument that we should not go balls to the wall to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons.
Posted by angryhippopotamus

The answer is that such an enemy would be undeterrable if you hold to rules the enemy violates with irrational worship for such rules as more important than your people's lives and even your survival as a people.
Typically, when one nation is confronted by an enemy that uses methods of warfare those "better people" traditionally abhor - they warn the enemy to stop slaughtering villages down to the last child, poisoning wells, etc - or they would be forced to adopt the same tactics to deter.

As long as both sides comply, the carnage can be better limited to "just the warriors" - who by the way, have lives just as important and valuable as the "innocent civilians" the pacifist crowd loves to blubber about. Being Drafted, or stepping forth voluntarily to serve your people under arms does not instantly make such people "guilty" as opposed to the "Innocent civilian" - nor devalue the lives of such people, customarily the most able of the young men.

Generally, the best practice people have found to deter is to war and impliment if necessary killing the enemy's civilians in retaliation for them intentionally targeting and killing yours, with little concern about proportionality or the "innocence" of the enemy population.

That is true in game theory. That is true in most wars. During the Cold War it was implicitly understood that if the Communists started blowing up Western Cities, theirs would suffer as bad or a worse fate. No one made the argument that because the people lived under a dictatorship that all enemy "innocent civilians" must be spared and retaliation limited to only killing soldiers then criminal trial against "the few dozen Politburo ringleaders". Both sides agreed that ALL the Geneva Convention Rules go out the window when WMD are employed in war against civilian populations. The Conventions were never written with that in mind, and leaders would be suicidal to hold such rules sacred as their homeland is decimated by an enemy flouting the Conventions.

In the case of Muslim terrorists with WMD provided by a state - you have the possibility of retaliating in a massive, lethal and mostly indiscriminant way against the state or the people that nourished, encouraged, tolerated terrorists arising in their midst and "fighting their cause".

So deterrance is quite doable, as long as terrorists understand their are limits that if crossed, remove their civilians from protection as war targets. And nations that give WMD to terrorists have been told by all the major powers that they will be considered just as culpable and just as much part of a retaliatory war as the terrorists that say, nerve gas London subways, launch Iranian-made anthrax on Iranian missiles on Haifa, or work with Jihadis to nuke a few US cities.

But while deterrance is still credible against Islamoids or other whack jobs once they realize the price for killing a ton of people in Tel Aviv might be obliteration of the entire population of Pals in Gaza, Hebron, Ramallah, Sidon - or worse carnage if the Muslim radicals nuke American or Indian cities - it is still a good idea to do nearly everything to prevent Iranian nukes and then Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Greece, and even old Iraq from joining in the nuke race.

Out-of-control proliferation of WMD in the ME is dangerous in the extreme.
Also, rationality is questionable with the extreme religious that may indeed welcome annihilation if they believe it serves Allah's purpose. Extremists in Iran have said that if Iran could exterminate Israel, even at the price of most Persians dying, it would be worth it because the tens of millions dying in an Israeli nuke counterstrike would be instant Martyrs and be welcomed into paradise for bringing back the 12th Iman and true Islam for all humanity..

So yes, even though we have credible deterrant, it cannot stop a leadership that may be irrational and willing to accept mass death, even eradication of their people as long as "higher goals of God are reached" - so we still should go balls to the wall to stop Iran. And go balls to the wall to stop Pakistan and N Korea from proliferating WMD and ICBM capability.

Posted by chris ford | June 3, 2008 1:22 AM

""This is one of several reasons why there needs to be a good-faith negotiations component to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program.""

I always like to pop us and mention that perhaps the best thing to do about the Iranian Nuclear program is to stop running around with your hands in the air, man up and do nothing. If anything the reason why the Iranians would want nukes is so that the US will stop dicking with them. Thus the best plan really is stop dicking with them and hope they decide to spend their money on other things.

Posted by Gibbon1 | June 3, 2008 4:03 AM

""This is one of several reasons why there needs to be a good-faith negotiations component to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program.""

I always like to pop us and mention that perhaps the best thing to do about the Iranian Nuclear program is to stop running around with your hands in the air, man up and do nothing. If anything the reason why the Iranians would want nukes is so that the US will stop dicking with them. Thus the best plan really is stop dicking with them and hope they decide to spend their money on other things.

Posted by Gibbon1 | June 3, 2008 4:23 AM

Matt: "Ultimately, international consensus against the idea of an Iranian nuclear weapon is the only way to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and to preserve and strengthen that consensus we need to act reasonably."

Once again, Matt mumbles around the issue and refuses to answer my two questions.

I give up.

When the Iran war starts and you morons are paying $10/gallon at the pump - except for Matt on his stupid bicycle - I'll be back for the apologies.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 3, 2008 5:50 AM

The hypocritical behaviour of the US is actually a major problem for any such initiatives. The US government is simply not credible, as it tolerates tax havens and has repeatedly used the "war on terror" to circumvent international agreements and regional laws in order to gain financial advantage. I'm not saying that the EU countries have a great track record in this regard, but the US has zero credibility at the moment and relies on inconsistent arm-twisting. If you really want to establish financial pressure as a tool to exert international pressure on rogue regimes, you will basically have to start from scratch.

Posted by novakant | June 3, 2008 6:56 AM

Re Trevor

Mr. Trevor claims that the inhabitants of the current State of Israel consists of East Europeans who stole the land from its native inhabitants.

1. How about the 1/2 of the population of Israel who were kicked out of Muslim countries during and after 1948 and their descendants. Apparently, Mr. Trevor thinks that was perfectly OK.

2. How about the entire Western Hemisphere that was stolen from its native inhabitants by Western Europeans? I am still waiting for Mr. trevor to return his house and the land on which it sits to its original inhabitants. I suspect that Mr. Trevor will see the back of his own ear before that happens.

Posted by SLC | June 3, 2008 8:32 AM

Trevor and Mr Kahanist: get a room at the bigot motel already.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 3, 2008 8:44 AM

I don't know if squeezing Iran's middle class (still in its insecure stages) is a good idea... but it just might work.

Posted by Persian | June 3, 2008 10:37 AM

I just don't see sanctions. Hillary said it best when she spoke of obliterating Iran and I wholeheartedly concur. When you have megalomaniacal maniacs who won't listen to reason, force is the language of choice.
Posted by Tim K | June 2, 2008 8:01 PM

Today's award for unintentional irony by a right-wing nut goes to...

Anyway, I agree with Glaivester and Gibbon1. Can Matt or somebody make a positive case that Iran poses a threat we need to deal with in the first place? I don't think highly of the sanity of excessively religious people either but the current regime has been in charge in Iran in 30 years, so they're probably pretty rational and invested in maintaining the status quo rather than yearning for martyrdom. Iran wants a nuclear weapon as a deterrent following Pakistan and North Korea's example, not to do God's will or something.

Hell, I hesitate to say this because I know it's an ample target for nutpicking, but if Iran getting a nuclear weapon keeps the United States from invading — preventing a war that would go even worse for everybody than the Iraq war has, I'd give them the plutonium or whatever myself.

Posted by Cyrus | June 3, 2008 11:54 AM

Iran is a serious country, a regional power for a couple of thousand years at least. The region in question is one of vital US interests, and in fact of vital interest to the entire industrialized world. Forget South Africa, a special case if there ever was one.

There is no, zero, military option for coercing Iran into conforming to Western political correctness short of a war effort of 1943 proportions, which is not a practical possibility in modern times. But there are significant areas of common interest between the US and Iran. Pragmatism requires that these common interests be the basis of an adult process which can produce a realistic relationship on the model of the one we currently have with China. Enough with the posturing. After the election, we should demand a serious Iran policy no matter who wins.

Posted by robert powell | June 3, 2008 4:37 PM

Sometimes, I feel like we - or the Republicans who control our foreign policy - are just picking countries out of a hat. So, on our side we get Pakistan (which, uh, has been caught giving nuclear weaponry to North Korea, Libya, and Iran) and Saudi Arabia (a country where the Protocols of the elders of Zion is held up as a serious history book). Then, we pick out Iran as an enemy, because they are anti-semitic (see Saudi Arabia) above, and because, at some mythical time, they might acquire nuclear missiles and give them to Hezbolla (see Pakistan above).

There aren't any real arguments from principles here. That might, at least, reflect a Kissinger-ian realpolitik - but it doesn't even respond to American interests, long term. It is more like a hodgepodge of the sedimented hysterias of the Bush moron crewe, plus a wierd alliance between rightwing Likud supporters and right wing anti-semitic evangelicals. It is a foreign policy that is against the interest of this country, from any rational point of view, and even against the interest of Israel, as a state instead of a perpetually expanding cause. When something gets that far out of alignment with reality, reality will have its revenge.

And this is even granting the right's bizarre picture of Iran as antisemite central, when of course, in the Middle East, it is about the most liberal Islamic country in terms of Iranian jews. Just compare that to the view of the government we are fighting and dying for, Iraq, run - of course! - by allies of Hezbollah.

It is the neverending sea of stupid.

Posted by roger | June 3, 2008 9:31 PM

No, divestment DID NOT bring down apartheid in South Africa as some have suggested here. Many factors came together at once to end apartheid. Divestment itself was not a significant cause of the change. According to research by Alicia H. Munnell, and Munnell and Annika Sunden at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, divestment is NOT a sufficiently effective tool to warrant divestment of pension funds. Pension funds should just say NO to divestment. Various economists and financial analysts worldwide have also weighed in on the subject. Divestment does not work, particularly in a global economy.

The continuing push to divest pension plans is not achieving anything demonstrable in targeted countries. It is, however, threatening the life savings of millions of your own countrymen--pensioners and potential pensioners nationwide. The "Public" in my Public Employee's Retirement Fund refers to public servants, i.e., teachers, firefighters, policemen etc., it isn't the public's money. It is money employees and their employers have contributed as part of contractual employment agreements, money that was to be held in trust solely for retirement purposes. That money is not there to make a political statement, nor is it to contribute to anyone's version of foreign policy.

The push to divest is political in nature, usually backed and supported by AIPAC and neo-con Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy among others. Pressure is brought to bear on legislators. Divestment legislation is a "feel good," kind of bill that doesn't hurt a broad enough segment of a state’s population to be worrisome at the polls. However, one gets high marks as a "friend of Israel" for promoting such legislation and that endorsement, or the lack thereof, can make or break a legislator in any future run for political office.

Many will be hurt by divestment, but none of those hurt will be the ruling elite of the targeted governments. We are being manipulated by hawkish rhetoric that is once again part of the run-up to a "preventive war." Do your homework. Vet the talking points and for cryin’ out loud, please THINK(!) before jumping on this or any other bandwagon.

Posted by research | June 5, 2008 2:58 PM