Why Sanctions and/or Military Force Won't Work In Iran

[samhsarah]

Iran Nobel Winner Says UN Sanctions Over Nuclear Program Will Inflame Iran, Set Back Democracy

By Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Sahimi

Addressing the issue of Iran's nuclear program entails neither threatening Iran with military strikes nor dragging it before the U.N. Security Council. While a vast majority of Iranians despise Iran's hardliners and wish for their downfall, they also support Iran's nuclear program because, aside from being economically justified, it has become a cause for national pride of an old nation with a glorious history. Moreover, the driving force behind Iran's nuclear program are the hardliners with a history of radicalism and an ideological view of the world. The hardliners, who now control the parliament and the presidency through rigged elections, oppose fiercely Iran's democratic movement, and will use any credible threat of military attack as an excuse to crush the democratic movement.

At the same time, a military attack on Iran would only inflame nationalist sentiments. Iranians remember the U.S. help to Iraq during its war with Iran, and see the double standards when the U.S. offers security guarantees and aid to North Korea and advanced nuclear technology to India, but nothing but sanctions and threats to Iran.

Iran is not Iraq: Given Iranians' fierce nationalism and the Shiites' tradition of martyrdom, any military moves on Iran will receive a response that would engulf the entire region in fire, resulting in countless number of innocent people getting killed, and a ruined economy not only for the region but for the world. Taking Iran's case to the U.N. Security Council and imposing sanctions on Iran will prompt the hardliners to leave the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and its "additional protocol." Is the world ready to live with such terrifying prospects?......

Therefore, the West must insist that Iran can start a limited uranium enrichment program, strictly safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency in the framework of Iran's proposal to the E.U. in March 2005, only when it undertakes meaningful and lasting reforms. These include freeing political prisoners, allowing true freedom of speech and the development of an independent press, and permitting all political groups to participate in the political process through elections that are considered free and fair by the international community.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/iran-nobel-winner-says-un_b_14038.html

[TomClash]

1. I agree that Iran should do all of these things

and immediately.

But what if this were the Iranians response: "the US must release free all political prisoners from Gauntanamo Bay and elsewhere immedaitely, stop the practice of rendition, reinstate the fairness doctrine, halt the pressure on American Media to parrot the "patriotic" line and ensure free and fair elections where the candidate with the most actual votes actually gets to govern the executive branch?"

What if the Iranians then said:" the US, Britain, France and Israel must dismantle their nuclear weapons programs and use nuclear energy only for peacefl purposes, strictly safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency?"

[samhsarah]

3. I agree with you 100%

The reason I posted the article is to stress the point that military force is not the answer. I don't think we need to be bullying around any other country. Not with our recent history. We have no right. But IF you are going to make the case that something needs to be done, and IF we can't stop the psychopaths running our government from doing something, maybe at least the international community can try to pressure the Bush cabal into supporting the democratic movement that is ALREADY there. I know I'm just dreaming, if we learned nothing else from Iraq it's that when these warpigs want war, that's what they get.

[TomClash]

5. I know

By no means was this I criticizing your post.

Here's on more problem they don't cite. An attack on Iran allows Iran to pull out of NNPT immediately as an "extraordinary event" under Article X of the NNPT. If the US/Israel attack Iran and are not completely successful, Iran will withdraw and surely seek to rebuild whatever has been destroyed and/or obtain nuclear weapons immediately.

I also suspect Iran has greater terrorist capabilities than is generally known. Any country attacking Iran must be prepared to take a hit.

[samhsarah]

6. No, we will be showered with roses and candy,

remember? Aren't all those Ay-rab countries the same anyway? Iran, Iraq, what's the fucking difference?:grr:

[mikelewis]

2. Couldn't we do these things too?

It sounds like good advice for us as well.

"Therefore, the West must insist that Iran can start a limited uranium enrichment program, strictly safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency in the framework of Iran's proposal to the E.U. in March 2005, only when it undertakes meaningful and lasting reforms. These include freeing political prisoners, allowing true freedom of speech and the development of an independent press, and permitting all political groups to participate in the political process through elections that are considered free and fair by the international community."

[samhsarah]

4. Of course

but it will never happen. Just like any problem our government creates with Iran will never be solved diplomatically. Read my post #3. I agree with you wholeheartedly that we have no place telling other countries what to do when our country is no better. But at this point, it is becoming unrealistic to think that our government isn't planning to do SOMETHING. So my point was, if that's the case, well just read #3.