|
Claim:
The United States should support a petroleum embargo on Iran, even though it may not work, to forestall an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, which would be worse.
Response:
That makes no sense. If a petroleum embargo fails, which it will, it's not much use in forestalling an Israeli attack that is being threatened, plausibly or not, in the event of its failure. In any case, the United States should not feel forced to pursue a foolish, self-defeating course of action in order to prevent Israel from doing something even more foolhardy and self-defeating -- with American money and American bombs. |
Claim:
The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate opined that "outside pressure" was primarily responsible for Iran's decision in 2003 to suspend its nuclear weapons program as well as its enrichment efforts.1 This shows that economic sanctions can work.
Response:
The NIE does not support this conclusion with evidence of any kind, and Iran scholars tend to judge that factors other than economic sanctions were more influential in that decision: America (briefly) seemed invincible then, and its forces were encamped next door to Iran. Iran was governed by a reformist President who managed to persuade the Supreme Leader to give diplomacy a chance.
Whatever the explanation, the unique opportunity provided by the opening was squandered. The Bush Administration responded with no compromise and no opening. Iran's top leadership clearly concluded that capitulation to pressure merely begets more pressure. Iran resumed enrichment and has been impervious to sanctions ever since.
Now, even hard core proponents of sanctions acknowledge that the current leadership may actually feel that conflict with the West empowers them domestically. 2
|
Claim:
According to Karim Sadjapour and Abbas Milani in recent Hill testimony: "many members of the opposition and the population actually are starting to come around. Their views towards sanctions have changed. They're not in a position to publicly articulate that right now. ... They're starting to see value in it." 1
Response:
According to Hamid Dabashi, leading expert on Iran at Columbia University and CNN Commentator: "there is absolutely not a shred of evidence that any major or even minor opposition leader -- from Mir Hossein Moussavi to Mehdi Karrubi to Mohammad Khatami, or any of their related political organs or legitimate representatives -- has ever uttered a word that could possibly be interpreted as calling for or endorsing any sort of economic sanction against Iran, let alone "crippling sanctions."
As in the Iraqi case, imposition of economic sanctions on Iran will have catastrophic humanitarian consequences, while . . . [empowering] the security and military apparatus . . .
It will also give them a welcome opportunity to accuse the opposition of cooperation with "the Enemy" and initiate even a harsher crackdown of the opposition, and perhaps even move toward a full-fledged military coup."
|
Claim:
In recent Hill testimony, Matthew Levitt of WINEP cited the following as proof that sanctions are working: "Supreme Leader Khamenei dismissed Yahya Rahim Safavi, the IRGC's commander since 1997, who was blacklisted by the UN in March 2007. Safavi's replacement, Muhammad Ali Jafari, confirmed that Safavi was removed primarily 'due to the U.S. threats.'" 1
Response:
[Need help please]
|
|
SEND