Should the U.S. impose sanctions on Iran during negotiations?

[Valley Oak]

I support Obama in opposing new sanctions against Iran during the current negotiations. Reaching agreements with Iran will be threatened by such an unwise move at a critical juncture. The new president of Iran has demonstrated consistently that he wants to work with the U.S. His opponents back home in Iran will be made stronger if new US sanctions are imposed. This would also help to usher the old, hard line back into power in Iran.

What do you think?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...n_4634015.html

[jbox]

I support Obama in opposing new sanctions against Iran during the current negotiations. Reaching agreements with will be threatened by such an unwise move at a critical juncture. The new president of Iran has demonstrated consistently that he wants to work with the U.S. His opponents back home in Iran will be made stronger if new US sanctions are imposed. This would also help to usher the old, hard line back into power in Iran.

What do you think?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...n_4634015.html

What do I think? I think we should mind our own business and learn the lesson, taught over and over again, that if we get involved in the Middle East, we end up a loser. We should let Israel mind its own business, which they are eminently capable of. How is this region better off with our idiotic wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? As soon as we leave the fundamentalists take over. Let Iran be who they're gonna be. This country is too sophisticated to let these fundamentalist ninnies go on for much longer. My 2 cents worth.

[Valley Oak]

John, what a passionate, honest and concise response! I love it; oooh baby.

Unfortunately, in our ever shrinking world ("global village" -- Marshall McLuhan), non-involvement is not an option. We are already one, big nation, whether we like it or not. Assuming the "ostrich position" is a really bad idea with really bad consequences for all. We no longer live in a world where we are over here minding our own business and "they" are way over there minding their own business. This is a view of the world akin to the crude maps of the world before Columbus discovered America in 1492.

Look at Nazi Germany and the West's propping him up (Prescott Bush, Henry Ford, Charles Lindberg, King Edward III of the UK, Walt Disney, and many others were Nazi sympathizers). Furthermore, oil giant, Texaco, gave ships full of petroleum, free, to the fascists during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), which was a precursor to WWII. Hitler desperately wanted to destroy leftist Spain as a future enemy and even turn it into a weak ally before launching WWII; he succeeded.

Then there was a Congressional vote to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, entering the U.S. into WWII, but one lady from Montana was the only "NO" vote. Are you with her? I would really like to know.

American isolationism is a colossal mistake and it always has been. The ancient argument of American isolationism has been debunked by historical events and American foreign policy, at least since WWI (1914-1918). Only political dinosaurs and Confederates like Ron and Rand Paul still voice such incredibly archaic views today.

Also, if you study the history of Iran, it is inextricably meshed with the US, UK, and, ultimately, the rest of the world. We are all connected and becoming more so, at a dizzying pace, every day. Democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, was a secular Iranian nationalist leader who had been educated in France. Mossadegh was ousted in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup, on 19 August 1953. The coup d'état was orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name 'Operation Boot') and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project).^[3][4][5][6]

John, we, the U.S., helped to create the fundamentalist monster in Iran, which seems to be slowly dying at snail speed. And the attitude of turning our backs on them now is not only a gargantuan foreign policy mistake, but it is also an enormous ethical mistake as well. We owe a HUGE liability to Iran and its people. Simply walking away from the mess we created is NOT the solution. It would only make things far worse. All nations around the world cannot ignore each other because now, more than ever, we are all neighbors and the concept of "nation" is gradually disappearing. The world is evolving into one nation, whether we want it to or not, and pretending that it's not or refusing to see this inevitable process is living in denial and is gravely irresponsible with grave consequences.

Turning our backs to the world is not going to make it go away. Indeed, trying to do so only creates new problems and makes existing ones worse.

What do I think? I think we should mind our own business and learn the lesson, taught over and over again, that if we get involved in the Middle East, we end up a loser. We should let Israel mind its own business, which they are eminently capable of. How is this region better off with our idiotic wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? As soon as we leave the fundamentalists take over. Let Iran be who they're gonna be. This country is too sophisticated to let these fundamentalist ninnies go on for much longer. My 2 cents worth.

[jbox]

John, what a passionate, honest and concise response! I love it; oooh baby.

Unfortunately, in our ever shrinking world ("global village" -- Marshall McLuhan), non-involvement is not an option. We are already one, big nation, whether we like it or not. Assuming the "ostrich position" is a really bad idea with really bad consequences for all. ...

Hi Edward,

I understand the world is getting smaller and its a global village and so on and so forth but as a nation we still have to respect the sovereignty of other nations. How would you feel if some other country put troops in California and started telling us to reform our society in the image the invader feels is the right way? That is exactly what we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Too often our "foreign policy" serves the explicit interests of American corporations or perhaps the egos of presidents. Our foreign adventures in the Middle East, while supposedly undertaken with allies, has really been a US venture with the US taking all the negative heat. There is an entire generation of Islamic people who have come of age hating America. Can you imagine growing up with an occupying military force in your home town?

In the case of Iran we are primarily acting at the behest of Israel and Joe Lieberman. With Iran moving in the direction of more moderation it has become increasingly unlikely they will attack Israel, or even get the bomb anytime soon. Israel, who stole the secrets of the bomb from us, has the most potent military in the region and is fully capable of taking action to neutralize any Iranian threat. Plus sanctions are working. We should not be acting on anyone else's behalf, sorry, that's just how I feel. We have enough work to do at home without getting involved in any more foreign adventures/quagmires.

To address some other points you made: No, I do not think the world is evolving into one nation. I may not like the fundamentalists in the Middle East, but who am I to judge what other societies or cultures want? Hitler and WW II was a different context and a different time. If there was a just war, this is it. Isolationism is not what I'm advocating. I believe we must participate in global debate but must respect the sovereignty and cultures of other nations, no matter how silly or ridiculous they may seem. Eventually the Iranians and other Muslim nations will stop being enamored with religious fundamentalism and come to know how the world really works, that we are all in this thing together and we can make it work without hate and violence.

[Valley Oak]

So, regarding this thread's subject line, do you support or oppose sanctions against Iran during the current negotiations?

Hi Edward,

I understand the world is getting smaller and its a global village and so on and so forth but as a nation we still have to respect the sovereignty of other nations. How would you feel if some other country put troops in California and started telling us to reform our society in the image the invader feels is the right way? That is exactly what we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[jbox]

So, regarding this thread's subject line, do you support or oppose sanctions against Iran during the current negotiations?

Sure, the sanctions seem to be having an effect so I support them. What I oppose is any escalation of tension, especially if it involves our military, or further meddling in the affairs of a sovereign nation. Normal, civilized relations are the goal here, you know, like Cuba. Sorry, don't get me started.

[Valley Oak]

I apologize. I should have been clearer in what I meant to say.

Although you don't need to look up the link if you don't want to, here is the article published by the Huffington Post website:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...n_4585416.html

Obama threatened the US Senate, including some Democratic senators, with a veto if they voted to impose new sanctions, in addition to the sanctions already in place now. No new sanctions have been approved by the senate. Obama emphasized the fact that there are important, promising talks with Iran taking place right now, and that there is already implementation of agreements reached by our two governments.

1. The previously existing sanctions on Iran are still in effect now.
2. It is new sanctions that Obama opposes.

I think that the current sanctions in place now can also be used as an incentive if things evolve favorably with Iran. Some folks might not like this because they believe that since the sanctions have worked (which is debatable), then taking them away or reducing them will result in Iran 'backsliding into old ways.' Especially now, during a delicate diplomatic process with an important country that is finally beginning to show signs of changing from a hateful enemy to a new friend an ally. Anything can happen; both the best and the worst scenarios are possible but sabotaging the process is a serious mistake.

I oppose new sanctions. My question to you is if you think that new sanctions should be imposed?

Sure, the sanctions seem to be having an effect so I support them. What I oppose is any escalation of tension, especially if it involves our military, or further meddling in the affairs of a sovereign nation. Normal, civilized relations are the goal here, you know, like Cuba. Sorry, don't get me started.

[Jim Wilson]

This is an interesting thread. First, to address the direct question of the thread; I oppose new sanctions on Iran. I also oppose the old sanctions on Iran. So I guess that makes me consistent.

I disagree with Edward regarding his characterization of isolationism. Further, I believe that the tendency of progressives towards an interventionist foreign policy is their Achilles heel. Wilson's ill-advised entry into W.W. 1 set a deeply unfortunate precedent and because Wilson is often cited as a progressive, his interventionist foreign policy is tacked onto general progressive views. I think this should be reconsidered.

As an absolute stance, isolationism is flawed because the world is too complex for such rigidity. But as a tendency, as a rule of thumb, more often than not it is the wiser course; e.g. W.W. I, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, the Afghan War, etc., etc.

My two cents,

Jim

[jbox]

...I oppose new sanctions. My question to you is if you think that new sanctions should be imposed?

Well, I have a rather weak philosophical aversion to any sanctions, and I have to concede in certain situations they are necessary or unavoidable. They seem to be working here and now but, as I said, escalation needs to be avoided, and an imposition of additional sanctions would seem to be another knucklehead Republican blunder.

[jbox]

This is an interesting thread. First, to address the direct question of the thread; I oppose new sanctions on Iran. I also oppose the old sanctions on Iran. So I guess that makes me consistent.

I disagree with Edward regarding his characterization of isolationism. Further, I believe that the tendency of progressives towards an interventionist foreign policy is their Achilles heel. Wilson's ill-advised entry into W.W. 1 set a deeply unfortunate precedent and because Wilson is often cited as a progressive, his interventionist foreign policy is tacked onto general progressive views. I think this should be reconsidered.

As an absolute stance, isolationism is flawed because the world is too complex for such rigidity. But as a tendency, as a rule of thumb, more often than not it is the wiser course; e.g. W.W. I, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, the Afghan War, etc., etc.

My two cents,

Jim

Thank you Jim. Could you be my brotha from anotha motha?

[Jim Wilson]

Jbox: Could be, who knows. With dna testing so sophisticated these days I suppose we could find out.

Some years ago I did a not very systematic study of isolationism as a foreign policy in other countries. The two standouts are Japan under the Tokugawa, before Perry forcibly opened Japan to the world; and Switzerland. One of the interesting things I discovered was that in at least these two instances one could conclude that isolationism was successful in the sense that the policy lasted a long time and helped to maintain the autonomy of those countries. It also kept them out of foreign wars. The Japanese period of isolationism lasted about 250 years; not a bad run. The Swiss experience allowed them to avoid destructive entanglements on a number of occasions.

Both of these nations are geographically isolated, which may be a contributing factor of some significance for the success of such a policy. Personally I think that factor is sometimes overemphasized, but it is relevant. I'm not sure if general lessons can be drawn from these two examples, but they are worthy of consideration.

Jim

[Valley Oak]

My opinion regarding the old sanctions on Iran is, "I don't know." But like I said before, taking away the old sanctions still in effect right now can serve as a powerful incentive for Iran.

And I agree with your reasoning as to why isolationism is flawed.

This is an interesting thread. First, to address the direct question of the thread; I oppose new sanctions on Iran. I also oppose the old sanctions on Iran. So I guess that makes me consistent.

I disagree with Edward regarding his characterization of isolationism. ...

[Valley Oak]

I don't have a crystal clear view of sanctions either other than they are "stick & carrot" tools, and of course, there's always the ethical questions about using them in the first place.

Apparently, the US Senate has backed down (mainly the 'rebel' Democratic senators, duh). I'm happy to see that there will be no new sanctions, which would have undermined or destroyed the 'thawing' of Iran and the hope of seeing that nation become integrated with the rest of the world, which is also to everyone's benefit.

Well, I have a rather weak philosophical aversion to any sanctions, and I have to concede in certain situations they are necessary or unavoidable. They seem to be working here and now but, as I said, escalation needs to be avoided, and an imposition of additional sanctions would seem to be another knucklehead Republican blunder.

[Jim Wilson]

Good Morning:

That's an interesting reaction to my post; I actually thought of my post as pro-isolationist. I'm wondering if you agree with my view that an interventionist foreign poicy is the progressive's achilles heel?

Thanks,

Jim

My opinion regarding the old sanctions on Iran is, "I don't know." But like I said before, taking away the old sanctions still in effect right now can serve as a powerful incentive for Iran.

And I agree with your reasoning as to why isolationism is flawed.

[Valley Oak]

What does this question mean? Brother in what sense? Mother in what sense?

It piqued my curiosity. Just wondering what these references signify.

Thanks

Thank you Jim. Could you be my brotha from anotha motha?

[jbox]

What does this question mean? Brother in what sense? Mother in what sense?

It piqued my curiosity. Just wondering what these references signify.

Thanks

Geez, Edward, it's just a funny figure of speech indicating a bit of synchronicity, in this case having to do with our attitudes toward this thread. No need to get too analytical.

[Valley Oak]

Things are clearly shaping up!

Senate Democrats Back Off Iran Sanctions Vote

[Valley Oak]

A radical, pro-Israeli PAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) does an about face on its previously staunch stance, abandoning support for new sanctions against Iran. That seems to me the most important reason why some Democratic senators were initially in favor of approving new sanctions.

Furthermore, it is part of AIPAC's history having been involved in spying on the US government and then passing that classified information on to the State of Israel:
Spying for Israel!
And:
Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal

The following article was published by The Huffington Post on 02/06/2014:
Now Even AIPAC Says It's Not The Right Time To Advance Iran Sanctions Bill

[handy]

I don't have a crystal clear view of sanctions either other than they are "stick & carrot" tools, and of course, there's always the ethical questions about using them in the first place.

Under international law, sanctions are considered acts of war.

Jim Wilson, isolationist is Not the same as non-interventionist. The distinction is important. Minding our own business does not isolate us.

[Jim Wilson]

Handy:

I agree that the distinction is important. For example, one could say that North Korea is isolationist, but it does not have a non-interventionist foreign policy, as it frequently threatens its neighbors.

It depends on how one defines these terms. Normally, from what I have read, in the context of U.S. foreign policy it particularly refers to those groups that were opposed to U.S. entry into W.W. II. By extension 'isolationist' is often used to cover any group opposed to U.S. entry into other wars; such as those who opposed, and today regret, U.S. entry into W.W. I. This kind of broad usage makes it somewhat difficult to discuss anti-interventionism as an actual possibility.

Still, again from what I have observed, all American isolationists are also anti-interventionists, but not all anti-interventionists are isolationists. Yes, it is kind of confusing. Generally speaking, American isolationists are not like those who crafted North Korea's policy of complete self-sufficiency. Most are enthusiastically in favor of trade, travel, and some level of immigration.

But I take your point and it should be considered.

Thanks,

Jim