BY MARK DUBOWITZ, REUEL MARC GERECHT | DECEMBER 15, 2009

Following the passage of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act in the U.S. House of Representatives today, it's worth considering the following facts in response to those who claim that the legislation will lead to a "rally around the flag" in Iran and who argue only for targeted sanctions against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Before the Iranian regime's brutal effort to crush the protests following the June 12 presidential election, an Iranian cab driver who couldn't buy gasoline would probably curse the Americans. After witnessing the brutal crackdown and his fellow citizens dying in the streets, he now might very well blame the regime.

Targeted sanctions are, for the most part, a fiction. If sanctions against America targeted the S&P 500, the American people would surely suffer. The United States can't effectively sanction the IRGC, which controls one-third of the Iranian economy, without hurting the Iranian people.

The U.S. Treasury Department's efforts against Iran have already been very harmful to the Iranian economy and, as a result, to the Iranian people. Yet, the Iranian people are not blaming Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey for the terrible economy despite the regime's best efforts to convince them to do so. Indeed, since June 12, we have heard Iranian dissidents increasingly wonder whether some sanctions -- specifically gasoline sanctions -- could be used to buttress the democracy movement in Iran. In private, some important dissidents have said that they would definitely welcome some sanctions so long as they were levied in the name of Iranian democracy.

There is ample precedent for this: Most South African dissidents were strong supporters of the embargo against the apartheid regime even though those sanctions unquestionably hurt millions of South Africans, especially those most economically disadvantaged. Sanctions are absolutely not a cure-all for iniquitous or hostile regimes; there are issues -- for example, Iran's support to terrorist organizations -- where sanctions may well send the wrong message about American resolve to defend itself and its allies. But with the Islamic Republic, as a means of addressing nuclear weaponization and democracy, gasoline sanctions are a sensible approach that might well have productively convulsive effects.

It's precisely because of the possibility that gasoline sanctions could be so consequential that they're worth pursuing. We suspect senior Iranian officials have been so loud in mocking the effectiveness of these sanctions because the regime knows it still does not have the requisite reserve capacity -- despite its much ballyhooed efforts -- to stop such sanctions from fomenting even more distaste for the regime on the Iranian street.

The options to deal with Iranian nukes are not between good and bad but between bad and worse.  We don't like sanctions. But they are a peaceful alternative that just might put significant pressure on Tehran. It's worth a try.

BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: IRAN, MIDDLE EAST
 

Mark Dubowitz is executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and director of FDD’s Iran Energy Project. Reuel Marc Gerecht is a former CIA officer and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

ANTIMKO

7:39 PM ET

December 15, 2009

Sanctions are NOT peaceful

MARK DUBOWITZ and REUEL MARC GERECHT want to turn Iran into another Iraq. Sanctions will not only hurt the people, it will kill them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

For a regime as wicked as Iran's rulers I'm sure they wouldn't mind letting millions of people die in the process. Would you like to have that on your conscious?

But of course you wouldn't, seeing as how you supported the Iraq war Mr. Gerecht and even argued for going after Iran at the same time: http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Gerecht_Reuel_Marc

 

HASS

2:57 AM ET

December 16, 2009

This is a gradual build-up to a war

The same NeoCons who pushed us into the Iraq war are pushing for the Iran war. The sanctions won't change anything because Iran's nuclear program is MASSIVELY popular amongst Iranian people who have a history of resenting foreign pressure.

However the neocons don't care if the sanctions are effective or not -- they only see sanctions as an incremental step towards their real goal which is a war on Iran on Israel's behalf. In the meantime peaceful options are being ignored, such as Iran's offer to open its nuclear program to joint participation with the US (an offer endorsed by the IAEA and US experts)

 

BESTACNEPRODUCTS

5:56 AM ET

December 16, 2009

Sanctions are NOT peaceful

Nice post. but i still think that at some stage this is again a build up for war.

Best Acne Treatment

 

MAIGARI

10:45 AM ET

December 16, 2009

Sanctions Against Iran

That was how the mother of all battles started. In an attempt to break Saddam and in the process "protect" US allies - Israel? - and friends -Saudi Arabia? - crippling sanctions were imposed on Iraq. To the end, the Baathists stalwarts were never really hurt but hundreds of thousands Iraqi children and women were!
The reality is, given the US attitude before Obam and now, it will be fool hardy for any leader to "strip" on account of US or Israel threats of military action. Sanctions may affect the private luxury of some elite here and there but by and large it is the women and children who will bear the brunt of US instigated sactions.
preswident Obama extended hand has turned out to be a clenched fist directed and controlled from Tel Aviv which ironically only uses Iranian Presidents' rhetoric to whip up AIPAC controlled Congress. Is it really feasible -even remotely - that Tehran CAN develop a nuclear warhead ibn the next decade? In all probability NO! but then US policy is guided by the military contractors and their remote share holders.
A saction will now definitely execebate the economic crisis in many African and Asian economies because the cost of oil will barrel out of control. Remember before the invasion of Iraq, aprice tag of $30.00 was considred high! Now that is inconcievable even with a price war between Saudi Arabia and Iraq, both US allies?

 

NAZIA

3:59 AM ET

December 18, 2009

Sanctions not for others

US is big suppliers of arms to Taiwan. India, Israel for irritating their neighbors.All know that Taiwan cant win any kind of war with China but even then US keep her in good books just for arms supplying.
So Iran is not making arms deals with US and busy in filling his ordinance depots through underground networks and that is why it is annoying US war lords.For the last 7 years US have been dumping its arms and many in Asian Muslim states and war culture is escalating due to her efforts so taking cover of Iran activities is just to create dust storm in which she is doing more dangerous jobs than Iran which main interests are only focused on self defense issues.

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

6:43 AM ET

December 18, 2009

Why are people anti-American?

Why is there rampant Anti-Americanism in the middle east? Many reasons, but we have to admit our fault: our bad policies, as even the Defense Science Board has admitted (see below).

Some of AQ's causes are legitimate even if their means to achieve them are WRONG.

Our flawed foreign policy engenders anti-Americanism.

We have indirectly killed >1 million muslim civilians in Iraq and Af/Pak. Why did this not make news on NYT or WaPo?

The US-led war on terrorism has left in its wake a far more unstable world than existed on that momentous day in 2001: Rather than diminishing, the threat from al Qaeda and its affiliates has grown, engulfing new regions of Africa, Asia, and Europe and creating fear among peoples from Australia to Zanzibar. The US invasions of two Muslim countries have so far failed to contain either the original organization or the threat that now comes from its copycats in British or French cities who have been mobilized through the Internet. The al Qaeda leader is still at large, despite the largest manhunt in history.

Afghanistan is once again staring down the abyss of state collapse, despite billions of dollars in aid, a hundred thousand Western troops, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The Taliban have made a dramatic comeback. The international community had an extended window of opportunity for several years to help the Afghan people—they failed to take advantage of it.

Pakistan has undergone a slower but equally bloody meltdown. In 2007 there were 56 suicide bombings in Pakistan that killed 640 people, compared to just 6 bombings in the previous year.

In 2009, American power lies shattered, US credibility lies in ruins. Ultimately the strategies of the Bush administration have created a far bigger crisis in South and Central Asia than existed before 9/11.

Eight years of neocon foreign policies have been a spectacular disaster for American interests in the Islamic world, leading to the rise of Iran as a major regional power, the advance of Hamas and Hezbollah, the wreckage of Iraq, with over two million external refugees and the ethnic cleansing of its Christian population, and now the implosion of Afghanistan and Pakistan, probably the most dangerous development of all.

This is what the US government’s Defense Science Board has to say on the situation

“American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.

American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies.

The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that
“freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.

• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination.

• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have
elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support.

• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.”

====

Our messing around overseas (witness our clear involvement with the terrorist murder of 5 Iranian revolutionary guards recently) causes blowback terrorism. It does not matter whether or not AQ has any safe havens or not or whether Hezbollah is rearming— regular people — heck, even US army officers, it appears — can become radicalized by the sheer extent of our injustice abroad.

Note I am not justifying what they did. Their means are WRONG. But their cause is, at least partly, just.

We need to stop our addiction to oil and leave the middle east.

Force — even when wielded by the seemingly strong against the nominally weak — continues to be an exceedingly uncertain instrument. The United States’ penchant for projecting power has created as many problems as it has solved. Genuinely decisive outcomes remain rare, costs often far exceed expectations, and unintended and unwelcome consequences are legion.

The pursuit of US military dominance is an illusion, the principal effect of which is to distort strategic judgment by persuading policymakers that they have at hand the means to make short work of history’s complexities. The real need is to wean the United States from its infatuation with military power and come to a more modest appreciation of what force can and cannot do.

We have to come to the painful conclusion that we have created much of the terrorism and anti-Americanism that we are subject to via our terrible foreign policies. It will be difficult to protect us from our (well-earned) blowback without fixing our own foreign policy.

Here is the link to the MIT official who calculates >1000000 dead muslim civilians as a result of our war of choice.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12150

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

9:00 AM ET

December 18, 2009

Do NOTHING!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18iht-edcohen.html?_r=1&ref=opinion