General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWill his New Sanctions on Iran Cost Obama the Presidency?
A sharp drop in the value of the Iranian currency as a result of new American sanctions may sound like good news to hawks in the US. But actually this development may signal ways in which Americans will also be harmed, and Obama may have put a second term in jeopardy, cutting off his nose to spite his face.
An amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Obama this past weekend will seek to slap third party sanctions on countries and enterprises that deal with Irans central bank. It will go into effect this summer. In effect, the law says that if you buy Iranian petroleum, you cannot do business with American financial institutions. Since the United States is still over a fifth of the world economy, and most institutions with capital need to deal with it, the hope of Congress is that Iran will be left without customers.
...
In short, even Congresss more severe sanctions and targeting of Irans Central Bank are likely to be ultimately ineffective in changing Iranian policy or undermining the regime. The international community will find work-arounds and close US allies like South Korea, facing major economic consequences, will lobby hard for exemptions. Obama, who was forced into this law and had opposed it, has every reason to grant the exemptions. In other instances, the NDAA will cause American will to be tested. It will take a lot of impudence to attempt to impose sanctions on Chinese banks for dealing with Iran, when Chinese finance is so important to propping up the US economy.
...
In signing the NDAA (which also allows the US military to arrest Americans anywhere in the world and to hold them indefinitely without trial), Obama has likely done harm to himself. Iranians will suffer some inconveniences and ordinary people may face real hardship in Iran. But the ayatollahs will still have their billions, and the regime will go on enriching uranium and supporting Syria and Hizbullah. The US, on the other hand, will suffer massive opportunity costs (i.e. it wont do all kinds of things in the economy that it might have otherwise) from a policy of keeping petroleum prices artificially high by bothering Iran.
http://www.juancole.com/2012/01/will-his-new-sanctions-on-iran-cost-obama-the-presidency.html
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)and will play well with swing voters.
Romney (and the others) are all out there talking about bombing Iran and not letting them get a nuclear bomb no matter what. Pres. Obama's more measured approach along with the ending of the Iraq war, the killing of bin Laden and the scheduled draw down of troops in Afghanistan give him a huge advantage in this debate.
It can be spun as working to keep America safe without going to war.
tabatha
(18,795 posts)But, Juan Cole likes to float many different ideas.
MADem
(135,425 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)President to forgo the left and woo the right of center. It may be just how he roles or it may have been a great strategy. Appealing to the center-right takes those votes from the republicon clown candidate. The center-right will love his hard stand on Iran as well as him signing the NDAA with its tough detention standards (of course only for "real" terrorists). The left of course has no choice, it's either him or a Ralph Nader write-in. In fact, even though the President continues the Patriot Act, domestic spying and signs a bill he knows is wrong (his signing statement as much as says that) some are saying that he stills has 85% support from the left. No, having a tough stand on Iran will win him more votes than he will lose.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"In effect, the law says that if you buy Iranian petroleum, you cannot do business with American financial institutions."