I have read in several newspapers today that the UN security council, led by the US is proposing to place oil sanctions on Iran in hopes that Iran will discontinue its nuclear enrichment program. However I believe that placing oil sanctions on the country is not the way to solve the problem. Iran is not home to the most oil reserves in the world, however it does play a significant part in oil exports. With the cost of oil, or gas-as it applies to normal citizens, skyrocketing, placing oil sanctions on Iran is the last action we want to take. Even to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
Sure, oil sanctions would place a dent in Iran's economy, but oil sanctions probably would not cause them to act within the bounds the US wants them to. Developing nuclear power is clearly more important to them. If they were really afraid of the UN or even the US, then they would have already complied. Plus nuclear power creates a considerable amount of revenue in and of itself.
If we must address the problem's associated with Iran's nuclear enrichment program, then perhaps we could place sanctions on all of the nations exports except for gasoline. That would be a win-win situation for the US. Iran would be facing a reduction in profits and we would still be able to purchase gasoline from the nation.
Valid point, but I think sanctions are the best way to go. Affecting the economy is the only way to bring about change. They might not be the largest exporter of oil, but there economy is based for the most part on the exportation of oil. Iran has not complied yet because they do not believe that the UN will go through with these sanctions. Nuclear energy takes years to refine therefore there is no revenue available as of yet from such sources of energy. Iran is a superpower of the Middle East serious repercussions could occur if they were to have access to nuclear weapons. There is no reason what so ever to take military action against Iran unless all countries in the United Nation’s believe that would be the best course of action. Military action would cost citizens of the United States much more than the rise of gas prices. Not to mention if we were to take military action gas prices would rise as well.
There is never going to be a unanimous decision for the UN to take military action against Iran; China nor Russia would ever allow that.
I understand that. That is why I said that military action should never be taken unless there was a unanimous decision. Therefore, I believe that military action should never be taken. It just is not worth the deadly and long-term effect it would cause. I should have made that more clearly in my original post. Thank you for helping me clarify it.
No. Crippling the economy would create civil unrest at the Iranian regime. Internal protest in Iran rises with economic turmoil. (I am Iranian) You can actually track stock market rise and fall, and see how when the Tehran exchange index is at a low year, the people rise up. No one in Iran wants this regime, but they just dont have enough will yet to rise up and take over the regime. Europe has been stabilizing the Islamic Republic for years and years, not letting the people have their chance in natural course of things as Locke would uphold.
Sanctions will lead to an internal uprising and regime change, which will bring a safe government, by the people, and an end to dictatorship.
You make some valid points in your blog. However, I think Iran is just "puffing up". They are a long ways away from developing a nuclear weapon. The only reason that he has been making comments is to bolster supporrt with the weak minded population. Besides, sanction almost never work. Just look at Iraq, the UN imposed sanctions on them for years yet he still managed to build multi-million dollar palaces and live life on the high horse. There will always be countries that are willing to trade with a embargoed country despite what the UN has imposed.
A single voice among many.
I do not think that Iran is near having a nuclear weapon either, but we need to stop them before they do develop one.
A few comments.
1. I think that stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear capability without guidance from the IAEA is one of the most important issues facing us today. Iran WILL use nuclear bombs if they get them - there's no fear of ICBMs or anything like that, but how hard would it be to smuggle a small nuke into Israel? If they think that there's any chance that they'll get away with it, they'll try.
2. Oil is most of the Iranian economy. Sanctions against everything BUT oil will send a very clear message to the world: that the US is so dependent on oil-producing countries that we can and will do no more than talk. The US would lose any remaining standing in the world.
Very true, this is quite a different community than Xanga, I agree. I think this site is in a different category than an "average blog" though.
Congratulations on blogger of the month.
Er, featured blogger that is, *cough*
Lol, thank you very much. Maybe next month it will be you!
Because we have a very stupid goverment.
Gina
The UN cant do anything you have to remember that. They rarely ever come to a conclusion. Russia and China will block any vote on sanctions much less vote in the security council for a military response. If anything it will be a message to Iran. Economics isn’t everything either. There is a chance the economy of Iran will collapse, leading to a power gap. However that would uproot the government of the country. Chances are they wouldn’t be able to develop nuclear arms in that position.
Russia and China are more likely to support economic sanctions on exports than on oil exports. And how do I not come to a conclution (btw I think that was an unneeded personal attack, it could have been better stated than 'rarely')? The problem was that they want to place oil santions, and my solution is that they place sanctions but not on oil.
Historically speaking they havent acted much aganist nations that break U.N. rules (with exceptions of course)The security council itself hasnt even acted properly on Darfur yet.
Sanctions might be nice, but they're unrealistic. Not everyone's against Iran, and China or Russia would easily veto any attempt to place sanctions on that country. And if the US were to go around the UN and try to place sanctions another way it still wouldn't work, because we don't get oil from Iran in the first place and the main importers of Iranian oil don't exactly agree with us on this issue (China).
But why should we put sanctions on Iran? Hasn't anyone thought about how hypocritical it is to say that the United States can have nuclear weapons, but Iran can't? Why is it wrong for Iran to have nuclear weapons - is it because they're "the bad guys" and we're "the good guys" and therefore we're allowed but they're not? We're not the ones who define who's good and bad, who's allowed to do what. In the end, we're not putting pressure on Iran for any other reason than Iran is against the US, and therefore is portrayed as bad. Also keep in mind that India's nuclear weapons were recently sanctioned by the USA under the Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty (NPT, which by the way says Iran's enrichment of uranium for nuclear power is legal), so it doesn't quite make sense that India gets the go-ahead but Iran doesn't. And it doesn't matter if Iran is run by a dictator - the USA has worked closely with Pakistan in the war on terror, a country ruled by a dictator which also has nuclear weapons.
And would Iran really use a nuclear weapon if it got it? Well, I'd say no. I know the leadership seems crazy sometimes but they KNOW that if they attack with nukes they will feel repercussions with nukes as well. For all the faults of the iranian leadership, they're not stupid. They know very, very well how the world-stage works and that's why the Iranians are becoming so powerful in the first place. This is, of course, assuming Iran builds nukes, which they claim they have no intention of creating (although threatening to attack Iran would only make them feel like they'll need to defend their country soon, and therefore make them want to get nuclear weapons sooner).
We can't look at this situation through such an ethnocentric point of view. The USA doesn't define who's good and who's bad, and we can't go around attacking everyone who disagrees with us.
I agree with the post. That will not help the problem at all!