Sanctions on Iran - Who's the Isolationist now?

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Rex_B, Apr 23, 2010.

  1. Rex_B

    Rex_B Geaux Time

    Nov 1, 2003
    Likes Received:
  2. Bengal Buddy

    Bengal Buddy Founding Member

    Dec 25, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Sounds like Paul wants to do nothing. First, a sanction is not considered an act of war. There is a big difference between a diplomaticlly applied and enforced sanctions and a militarily enforced blockade, although the results are similar. Secondly, if Paul does not believe Iran plans to develop a nuclear weapon he has his head buried deep in the sand. On the one hand he says there is no proof that Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons, but there is plenty of evidence that they intend to build a nuclear weapon and even Paul admits we should not be surprised if they are. In fact he seems to have no objection to it. So if Paul does not like the use of sanctions, what does he expect the UN to do to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear capability? What other options are there? Despite what he says, sanctions are an alternative to military action that do not inevitably lead to miltary force being used. Military force is used only when sanctions fail to achieve their designed purpose. So I ask again, If Paul does not want to sanction Iran, what options does he have that would prevent Iran from developing nuclear capability?
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Oct 21, 2002
    Likes Received:
    Nothing will prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon if they are determined to do so. We can make it expensive in both money and international credibility if we wish. But the only thing that will prevent any country from going nuclear is to invade and occupy the country forever. That's just not going to happen. It's too expensive, doomed to fail, and buys us nothing. Air strikes won't so the job either, they only delay the inevitable and turn a population that is on the verge of revolution into a nationalistic body that is solidly against us.

    We have to realize that Iran doesn't want a nuclear weapon to attack the US with, even less to give to some looney fringe group to attack the US with a weapon that has Iran's return address on it. They are fanatic but they are not stupid. They know good and well that they will lose a nuclear war with us and it is not among their desires.

    They do it for three reasons:

    1. For nationalist reasons. It gives the country pride to be seen to be more than a third-world country and helps keep down the growing dissident movement internally.

    2. For deterrence. They have Russia to the north that has always desired Iran's warm-water ports, Israel to the East and Pakistan to the West, all with nuclear weapons. They are trying to keep up with the local Joneses, primarily in getting a deterrence weapon to inhibit Israel from attacking Iran.

    3. To intimidate the Arabs and the Pakistanis, with whom Persians have had contentious relations with for thousands of years.​

    What is important for Americans to realize is that Iran has no delivery system that can hit us even if they had a weapon. Theoretically they could hit US bases in the Persian Gulf, but in the face of serious US military resistance, it won't be easy for them. Neither their air force nor their short-range missiles would last long in a shooting war with the US. Worse it would bring the same response as if they hit Kansas.

    They might be able to hit Israel in 5 or 6 years, but that would be national suicide since Israel is far ahead of them in number and quality of warheads, air forces, and missiles. No, if Iran ever actually produces a weapon it will be for show, like North Korea. They might as well keep it in their national museum.

    It is political suicide to make grand pronouncements that you cannot keep, ask George Bush about spreading democracy across the Middle East by Invading Iraq. Obama would be wise not to put himself out on a limb by declaring that we will tolerate no nuclear weapon in Iraq. That would commit the US to expensive and futile action that would be against our best interests. What he should do is three things:

    1. Keep up the sanction pressure to make intransigence expensive and frustrating for the Iranians and to keep the Iranian population uneasy and unhappy. Make it Iran versus the World, not Iran vesus The Superpower.

    2. Go Hillary on them and openly warn Iran that within a hour after they use a nuclear weapon against us or our allies that the 240 biggest cities, towns, and bases in Iran will be shaded by large mushroom clouds. Deterrence has always worked, even against the Soviets. One Trident submarine in the Indian ocean could handle Iran permanently.

    3. Strut the power of our military all around them to remind them that they are in fact still a third-world country, but not engage in military action against them. This will only drive them together. We should be covertly encouraging the coming counter-revolution and driving the Iranian factions apart.​

    A new government with a new agenda is what we want. It makes far more sense to incite revolution and collapse from within rather than trying to assault, invade, occupy, and install a government of our own choosing. It worked to defeat the Soviet Union. It will work with Iraq, too.

    Speak softly and carry a big stick.
  4. Texas_Tiger

    Texas_Tiger Tiger Stuck in Aggie Land

    Aug 30, 2009
    Likes Received:
    None, until this administration is out of office. But, Israel will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, they will act when they feel there is no other option.
  5. flabengal

    flabengal Founding Member

    Apr 3, 2003
    Likes Received:
    I'll be damned....another sign the apocalypse is upon us....I agree with Red!

    Just one more point regarding the Non-proliferation Treaty...that treaty specifically says other nations agree to forego developing nuclear weapons based on the assumption that in return the nuclear powers already existing will get rid of theirs.

    Good luck with that.

Share This Page