Sanctions against Iran = precursor to war

[mhgaffney]

I was shocked to learn from Ron Paul that the House overwhelmingly passed a bill last week to impose sanctions on Iran.

Where are the American people? Why have they not weighed in?

Apparently the peace movement is dead. Which is exactly what I've been saying. It died last January with the Israeli genocide in Gaza. We are a nation of sheep, which is a cowardly animal.

Now the Zionist push for yet another war -- has gained new momentum.

MHG


Iran Sanctions Are a Precursor to War

By Ron Paul

December 22, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- Last week the House overwhelmingly approved a measure to put a new round of sanctions on Iran. If this measure passes the Senate, the United States could no longer do business with anyone who sold refined petroleum products to Iran or helped them develop their ability to refine their own petroleum. The sad thing is that many of my colleagues voted for this measure because they felt it would deflect a military engagement with Iran. I would put the question to them, how would Congress react if another government threatened our critical trading partners in this way? Would we not view it as asking for war?

This policy is pure isolationism. It is designed to foment war by cutting off trade and diplomacy. Too many forget that the quagmire in Iraq began with an embargo. Sanctions are not diplomacy. They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade. It is ironic that people who decry isolationism support actions like this.

If a foreign government attempted to isolate the US economically, cut off our supply of gasoline, or starve us to death, would it cause Americans to admire that foreign entity? Or would we instead unite under the flag for the survival of our country?

We would not tolerate foreign covert operations fomenting regime change in our government. Yet our CIA has been meddling in Iran for decades. Of course Iranians resent this. In fact, many in Iran still resent the CIA’s involvement in overthrowing their democratically elected leader in 1953. The answer is not to cut off gasoline to the Iranian people. The answer is to stay out of their affairs and trade with them honestly. If our operatives were no longer in Iran, they would no longer be available as scapegoats for the regime to, rightly or wrongly, blame for every bad thing that happens. As bad as other regimes may be, it is up to their own people to deal with them so they can achieve true self-determination. When foreigners instigate regime change, the new government they institute is always perceived as serving the interest of the overthrowing country, not the people. Thus we take the blame for bad governance twice. Instead we should stay out of their affairs altogether.

With the exception of the military industrial complex, we all want a more peaceful world. Many are hysterical about the imminent threat of a nuclear Iran. Here are the facts: Iran has never been found out of compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) they signed. However, being surrounded by nuclear powers one can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfully. After all, we don’t sanction nuclear capable countries. We take diplomatic negotiations a lot more seriously, and we frequently send money to them instead. The non-nuclear countries are the ones we bomb. If Iran was attempting to violate the non-proliferation treaty, they could hardly be blamed, since US foreign policy gives them every incentive to do so.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

[watermock]

It's slipping right under the radar.

[watermock]

I thougjht u thought ron paul was an idiot gaff?

[peacepipe]

This policy is pure isolationism. It is designed to foment war by cutting off trade and diplomacy. Too many forget that the quagmire in Iraq began with an embargo. Sanctions are not diplomacy. They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade. It is ironic that people who decry isolationism support actions like this.

Iraq happened because no one questioned the moron in chief, GWB.

[peacepipe]

If a foreign government attempted to isolate the US economically, cut off our supply of gasoline, or starve us to death, would it cause Americans to admire that foreign entity? Or would we instead unite under the flag for the survival of our country?


Well, if multiple nations such as the U.N. decides to do something like that you have to question: are they doing it for no reason,did we decide to attack/invade a country without cause(Iraq).

The problem with Ron Paul is that he's an extremist when it come to protectionism. His belief that being a part of the U.N. undermines our soveirnty is extreme. Besides,Ron Paul is as far to the right as Nader is to the left.

[watermock]

There is also a part called reality.

[Spider]

Pre cursor to war ? you flipping idiot , we been sanctioning Iran for years ............. Ron Paul is as flaky as they come ............

[cutthemdown]

LOL Obama doesn't have the guts to attack Iran. The threat of sanctions are just so when the election comes around he can say he is working on it diplomatically. If he does nothing it would hurt how the country see's him, it would weaken him. If he attacks he will probably regret it. So the smart move is sanctions that have no teeth, but look good on the news.

[mhgaffney]

Spider.

Yes there were other sanctions. But these are NEW sanctions. This is the whole point. It's a dangerous escalation.

[mhgaffney]

Cut,

You are soooo wrong. Given an escalating situation -you never know where the spark will come from.

[cutthemdown]

Cut,

You are soooo wrong. Given an escalating situation -you never know where the spark will come from.

I know you like to think it would be this huge battle. But if all hell broke loose our technology, number of planes, missiles, subs would overwhelm them in a matter of weeks.

No standing army can come out on to the battlefield with the USA except for Russia and China.

We can drop fuel air bombs and make every republican guard troop run for his life in a futile escape.

You don't want to even know what it would be like watching 4 or 5 fuel air bombs glide to the ground or parachutes. When the ignite there is nothing left.

They would fire a bunch of missiles at Israel, try to use there 100 or so advanced anti ship missiles for sure, but we would lay waste to every important strategic military installation within just a few weeks.

It may be ugly, couple ships destoryed, 30-40 jets down, but make no mistake it would be a huge mismatch.

[cutthemdown]

There is a big difference between what we did in Iraq and Afghan and what we would do to Iran.

Iran would be more like just destroying everything they hold dear from the air until they have nothing left.

[bpc]

All it takes is one nuke dropped on our soil. For some cultures, flying a plane into a building and killing 3000 is easy. What makes dropping a bomb any less so?

I just watched Pearl Harbor (spare me your conspiracy theory) yesterday, and it isn't all that hard to imagine some catastrophic like that happening again, only this time it takes 1/60th of the time that attack took and it has the potential to take many more people.

Iran has nuclear aspirations, a clear distaste for anything western and could be housing many terrorists within their borders. That's a highly volatile mix. Never take anything for granted. Not even our security or freedom.

[cutthemdown]

The escalation comes from iran hiding secret enrichement facilities that could never produce enough enriched uranium for a civilian project.

The plan is so obvious its funny you don't see it. Now there is proof they make have been talking about a triggering device. Of course though you believe the oompa loompa Iranian puppet boy that its a plant. Because you know, he's so credible.

[cutthemdown]

All it takes is one nuke dropped on our soil. For some cultures, flying a plane into a building and killing 3000 is easy. What makes dropping a bomb any less so?

I just watched Pearl Harbor (spare me your conspiracy theory) yesterday, and it isn't all that hard to imagine some catastrophic like that happening again, only this time it takes 1/60th of the time that attack took and it has the potential to take many more people.

Iran has nuclear aspirations, a clear distaste for anything western and could be housing many terrorists within their borders. That's a highly volatile mix. Never take anything for granted. Not even our security or freedom.

Dropping a bomb not hard, getting it to explode not all that easy. Putting it on a missile really tough. Not east stuff really.

Still Iran probably getting close. Do we want to wait until they have done it? Might be better to shut them down.

[peacepipe]

LOL Obama doesn't have the guts to attack Iran. The threat of sanctions are just so when the election comes around he can say he is working on it diplomatically. If he does nothing it would hurt how the country see's him, it would weaken him. If he attacks he will probably regret it. So the smart move is sanctions that have no teeth, but look good on the news.You say this as if attacking Iran is the only legitimate option. There is more than one way to soon a cat.

[cutthemdown]

You say this as if attacking Iran is the only legitimate option. There is more than one way to soon a cat.

We will see. IMO it depends on what there goals was, not how we handle it. If the goal was lets make the west uneasy, then use it to negotiate and get all sanctions lifted etc.....

Or is it to actually be a nuclear power. If the goal is to play cat and mouse until they test a nuclear device like N Korea did then I'm not sure any politics will work. Obama IMO will try to delay, threaten, put some new sanctions, but in the end if the goal was to build a nuclear device, it will be some other President who has to decide what to do.

[SPfloppy]

We simply cannot do it now. Our forces are arrayed well surrounding Iran. However they are commited to ongoing operations against seperate enemies on seperate missions. Would we win straight up? Yes. Just not this moment. I loved how they marched guys right into an Iraqi oil field the other day and we did nuth'n. If GWB was in house he'd have at least put our troops into action closer (that isn't a knock on Obama, but an observation on trigger happy Bush)

[Bronx33]

We simply cannot do it now. Our forces are arrayed well surrounding Iran. However they are commited to ongoing operations against seperate enemies on seperate missions. Would we win straight up? Yes. Just not this moment. I loved how they marched guys right into an Iraqi oil field the other day and we did nuth'n. If GWB was in house he'd have at least put our troops into action closer (that isn't a knock on Obama, but an observation on trigger happy Bush)

It was a test for sure they are not remotely scared of obama after his apology world tour 09 nobody takes the guy serious and look for a bunch of shyt to happen by clowns like iran in the future.

Iran having nukes is a very bad deal being ruled by islamic radicals and obama can't do anything to stop em pretty speeches are useless.

[mhgaffney]

As usual, Cut misses the big picture.

You forget we won the Viet Nam War militarily -- yet lost the war. Military power is what it is. You make the mistake of believing it is more than this.

IF Iran attacks the US fleet in the Gulf IN ITS OWN DEFENSE and sinks a US ship -- killing a thousand US sailors -- there will be hysteria on this board -- and on FOX News -- to destroy Iran.

OK -- so we could do it. Militarily we have the power. But you fail to appreciate the many consequences.

As I have stated -- Iran can now hit Israel's nuclear stockpiles and the Dimona nuclear reactor with conventional medium range missiles. If the reports at GlobalSecurity.org are correct -- they have upgraded their missile guidance systems with GPS.

We are talking about a small Chernobyl in Israel -- more than capable of polluting the Holy Land with radiation for thousands of years.

This is WITHOUT nukes being used.

Consider another likely result of a US attack on Iran. Hugo Chavez will probably cut off sales of oil to the US -- causing an IMMEDIATE economic crisis here./ We are totally dependent on Venezuelan oil.

So what then, CUT? Bomb Caracas? You can't bomb everyone. You can't invade everywhere.

There are limits to military power. We are already past that limit. We are ALREADY overextended.

The options are very limited at this point. The only sane path is to do exactly as Ron Paul recommends -- leave Iran alone. Just leave them alone.

[mhgaffney]

This is why the new sanctions bill is so dangerous. We are NOT prepared for the consequences of an expanded war.

[orinjkrush]

just what we need a third simultaneous islamic war. (not counting unofficial predator war in Paki-world)

now, if we just took out the Saudis.....hmmmmm

[Bronx33]

This is why the new sanctions bill is so dangerous. We are NOT prepared for the consequences of an expanded war.

Don't worry captain sweet speeches won't touch iran with a 10 foot pole he will do all his tough taking on tv and sanctions.

[Bronx33]

As usual, Cut misses the big picture.

You forget we won the Viet Nam War militarily -- yet lost the war. Military power is what it is. You make the mistake of believing it is more than this.

IF Iran attacks the US fleet in the Gulf IN ITS OWN DEFENSE and sinks a US ship -- killing a thousand US sailors -- there will be hysteria on this board -- and on FOX News -- to destroy Iran.

OK -- so we could do it. Militarily we have the power. But you fail to appreciate the many consequences.

As I have stated -- Iran can now hit Israel's nuclear stockpiles and the Dimona nuclear reactor with conventional medium range missiles. If the reports at GlobalSecurity.org are correct -- they have upgraded their missile guidance systems with GPS.

We are talking about a small Chernobyl in Israel -- more than capable of polluting the Holy Land with radiation for thousands of years.

This is WITHOUT nukes being used.

Consider another likely result of a US attack on Iran. Hugo Chavez will probably cut off sales of oil to the US -- causing an IMMEDIATE economic crisis here./ We are totally dependent on Venezuelan oil.

So what then, CUT? Bomb Caracas? You can't bomb everyone. You can't invade everywhere.

There are limits to military power. We are already past that limit. We are ALREADY overextended.

The options are very limited at this point. The only sane path is to do exactly as Ron Paul recommends -- leave Iran alone. Just leave them alone.


So their is an upside to iran having nukes after all :spit:

[cutthemdown]

We get about 7% of our oil from Venezuela. Mostly low grade crap really, they have sulpher in there oil.

We get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, then Venezuela. We would be fine. No Venezuela goes into bankruptcy without that 7-10% so let them cut us off.

No I would not recommend attacking them. Besides when we do that Gaff we will use Colombia to stir it up.

I doubt Iran would unleash an attack on a nuclear reactor for fear it could just float over to Syria/Lebanon/Egypt and give Obama a coalition against him. For sure we would make Iran do something first. Sanctions, that piss them off, that lead to them provoking us, that leads to a bombing run etc. Then if Iran wanted to try a doomsday approach like you said, It would then be easy to get support to end them once and for all.

Most likely the killer ship missiles you speak of wouldn't work because Iran would lack the strategic capability to deploy them. They would most likely take aim at civilian shipping and try to shut down the gulf.

It would be a mess, but what it your plan? No sanctions, no nothing, just let Iran build nukes and long range missiles?

[mhgaffney]

Bronx,

You have some reading comprehension issues.

The only state in the MIdeast with nukes is Israel.

[mhgaffney]

We get about 7% of our oil from Venezuela. Mostly low grade crap really, they have sulpher in there oil.

We get most of our oil from Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, then Venezuela. We would be fine. No Venezuela goes into bankruptcy without that 7-10% so let them cut us off.

No I would not recommend attacking them. Besides when we do that Gaff we will use Colombia to stir it up.

I doubt Iran would unleash an attack on a nuclear reactor for fear it could just float over to Syria/Lebanon/Egypt and give Obama a coalition against him. For sure we would make Iran do something first. Sanctions, that piss them off, that lead to them provoking us, that leads to a bombing run etc. Then if Iran wanted to try a doomsday approach like you said, It would then be easy to get support to end them once and for all.

Most likely the killer ship missiles you speak of wouldn't work because Iran would lack the strategic capability to deploy them. They would most likely take aim at civilian shipping and try to shut down the gulf.

It would be a mess, but what it your plan? No sanctions, no nothing, just let Iran build nukes and long range missiles?

You have a short memory. During the Cold War -- we stood eye ball to eyeball with the USSR -- which never pulled the nuclear trigger because deterrence worked.

If Iran got nukes -- the same thing would happen.

I emphasize -- there is no evidence they are even trying to get nukes. The evidence only suggests they want to keep their options open.

No -- the worry is about the US and ISrael losing nuclear hegemony in the region. If Iran got nukes --we would not be able to attack them.

So sad. The big bad bullies on the block would have to back off.

MHG

[Bronx33]

Bronx,

You have some reading comprehension issues.

The only state in the MIdeast with nukes is Israel.


I never emplied anybody had nukes gaffo so where is my comprehension issue? and it's you that missed the point of my last post and i mean you completely missed it.

[mhgaffney]

Yesterday in the NY Times a so called expert advocated a US war against Iran.

This "expert" erroneously claimed that the 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor prevented Saddam Hussein from developing a plutonium bomb. That is not true. There is not a shred of evidence that in 1981 Iraq had a nuclear weapons program.

In fact, Israel's attack motivated Saddam Hussein to launch such a program.
MHG


There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/opinion/24kuperman.html?emc=eta1


By ALAN J. KUPERMAN
Published: December 23, 2009

PRESIDENT OBAMA should not lament but sigh in relief that Iran has rejected his nuclear deal, which was ill conceived from the start. Under the deal, which was formally offered through the United Nations, Iran was to surrender some 2,600 pounds of lightly enriched uranium (some three-quarters of its known stockpile) to Russia, and the next year get back a supply of uranium fuel sufficient to run its Tehran research reactor for three decades. The proposal did not require Iran to halt its enrichment program, despite several United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding such a moratorium.

Iran was thus to be rewarded with much-coveted reactor fuel despite violating international law. Within a year, or sooner in light of its expanding enrichment program, Iran would almost certainly have replenished and augmented its stockpile of enriched uranium, nullifying any ostensible nonproliferation benefit of the deal.

Moreover, by providing reactor fuel, the plan would have fostered proliferation in two ways. First, Iran could have continued operating its research reactor, which has helped train Iranian scientists in weapons techniques like plutonium separation. (Yes, as Iran likes to point out, the reactor also produces medical isotopes. But those can be purchased commercially from abroad, as most countries do, including the United States.) Absent the deal, Iran’s reactor will likely run out of fuel within two years, and only a half-dozen countries are able to supply fresh fuel for it. This creates significant international leverage over Iran, which should be used to compel it to halt its enrichment program.

In addition, the vast surplus of higher-enriched fuel Iran was to get under the deal would have permitted some to be diverted to its bomb program. Indeed, many experts believe that the uranium in foreign-provided fuel would be easier to enrich to weapons grade because Iran’s uranium contains impurities. Obama administration officials had claimed that delivering uranium in the form of fabricated fuel would prevent further enrichment for weapons, but this is false. Separating uranium from fuel elements so that it can be enriched further is a straightforward engineering task requiring at most a few weeks.

Thus, had the deal gone through, Iran could have benefited from a head start toward making weapons-grade 90 percent-enriched uranium (meaning that 90 percent of its makeup is the fissile isotope U-235) by starting with purified 20 percent-enriched uranium rather than its own weaker, contaminated stuff.

This raises a question: if the deal would have aided Iran’s bomb program, why did the United States propose it, and Iran reject it? The main explanation on both sides is domestic politics. President Obama wanted to blunt Republican criticism that his multilateral approach was failing to stem Iran’s nuclear program. The deal would have permitted him to claim, for a year or so, that he had defused the crisis by depriving Iran of sufficient enriched uranium to start a crash program to build one bomb.

But in reality no one ever expected Iran to do that, because such a headlong sprint is the one step most likely to provoke an international military response that could cripple the bomb program before it reaches fruition. Iran is far more likely to engage in “salami slicing” — a series of violations each too small to provoke retaliation, but that together will give it a nuclear arsenal. For example, while Iran permits international inspections at its declared enrichment plant at Natanz, it ignores United Nations demands that it close the plant, where it gains the expertise needed to produce weapons-grade uranium at other secret facilities like the nascent one recently uncovered near Qom.

In sum, the proposal would not have averted proliferation in the short run, because that risk always was low, but instead would have fostered it in the long run — a classic example of domestic politics undermining national security.

Tehran’s rejection of the deal was likewise propelled by domestic politics — including last June’s fraudulent elections and longstanding fears of Western manipulation. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad initially embraced the deal because he realized it aided Iran’s bomb program. But his domestic political opponents, whom he has tried to label as foreign agents, turned the tables by accusing him of surrendering Iran’s patrimony to the West.

(Page 2 of 2)

Under such domestic pressure, Mr. Ahmadinejad reneged. But Iran still wants reactor fuel, so he threatened to enrich uranium domestically to the 20 percent level. This is a bluff, because even if Iran could further enrich its impure uranium, it lacks the capacity to fabricate that uranium into fuel elements. His real aim is to compel the international community into providing the fuel without requiring Iran to surrender most of the enriched uranium it has on hand.

Indeed, Iran’s foreign minister has now proposed just that: offering to exchange a mere quarter of Iran’s enriched uranium for an immediate 10-year supply of fuel for the research reactor. This would let Iran run the reactor, retain the bulk of its enriched uranium and continue to enrich more — a bargain unacceptable even to the Obama administration.

Tehran’s rejection of the original proposal is revealing. It shows that Iran, for domestic political reasons, cannot make even temporary concessions on its bomb program, regardless of incentives or sanctions. Since peaceful carrots and sticks cannot work, and an invasion would be foolhardy, the United States faces a stark choice: military air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities or acquiescence to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

The risks of acquiescence are obvious. Iran supplies Islamist terrorist groups in violation of international embargoes. Even President Ahmadinejad’s domestic opponents support this weapons traffic. If Iran acquired a nuclear arsenal, the risks would simply be too great that it could become a neighborhood bully or provide terrorists with the ultimate weapon, an atomic bomb.

As for knocking out its nuclear plants, admittedly, aerial bombing might not work. Some Iranian facilities are buried too deeply to destroy from the air. There may also be sites that American intelligence is unaware of. And military action could backfire in various ways, including by undermining Iran’s political opposition, accelerating the bomb program or provoking retaliation against American forces and allies in the region.

But history suggests that military strikes could work. Israel’s 1981 attack on the nearly finished Osirak reactor prevented Iraq’s rapid acquisition of a plutonium-based nuclear weapon and compelled it to pursue a more gradual, uranium-based bomb program. A decade later, the Persian Gulf war uncovered and enabled the destruction of that uranium initiative, which finally deterred Saddam Hussein from further pursuit of nuclear weapons (a fact that eluded American intelligence until after the 2003 invasion). Analogously, Iran’s atomic sites might need to be bombed more than once to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

As for the risk of military strikes undermining Iran’s opposition, history suggests that the effect would be temporary. For example, NATO’s 1999 air campaign against Yugoslavia briefly bolstered support for President Slobodan Milosevic, but a democratic opposition ousted him the next year.

Yes, Iran could retaliate by aiding America’s opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it does that anyway. Iran’s leaders are discouraged from taking more aggressive action against United States forces — and should continue to be — by the fear of provoking a stronger American counter-escalation. If nothing else, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the United States military can oust regimes in weeks if it wants to.

Incentives and sanctions will not work, but air strikes could degrade and deter Iran’s bomb program at relatively little cost or risk, and therefore are worth a try. They should be precision attacks, aimed only at nuclear facilities, to remind Iran of the many other valuable sites that could be bombed if it were foolish enough to retaliate.

The final question is, who should launch the air strikes? Israel has shown an eagerness to do so if Iran does not stop enriching uranium, and some hawks in Washington favor letting Israel do the dirty work to avoid fueling anti-Americanism in the Islamic world.

But there are three compelling reasons that the United States itself should carry out the bombings. First, the Pentagon’s weapons are better than Israel’s at destroying buried facilities. Second, unlike Israel’s relatively small air force, the United States military can discourage Iranian retaliation by threatening to expand the bombing campaign. (Yes, Israel could implicitly threaten nuclear counter-retaliation, but Iran might not perceive that as credible.) Finally, because the American military has global reach, air strikes against Iran would be a strong warning to other would-be proliferators.

Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better.

Alan J. Kuperman is the director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas at Austin.

[cutthemdown]

Like Gaff always says. If it doesn't come from information clearing house, then it ain't worth reading!!

[mhgaffney]

Cut,

You never learned how to read? The above post is straight from the NY Times.

Curious - how when you are owned you either change the subject or somehow engage in diversionary tactics.

Hmmmm.

[cutthemdown]

dude your idea is to let Iran build bombs and create a nuclear deterance of mutual destruction like we have with Russia and the USA. Ummmmm ok bro whatever, you are right you have great ideas.

[cutthemdown]

Oh and the NY times article seems spot on, bomb the ****ers.

[barryr]

So Israel is threatening countries with nukes all the time just because? If Israel had nukes for anything other than defense, they would have been using them by now. But it's muslim countries that seem interested in attaining nukes and making threats to Israel all the time, so surprised Israel is worried about protecting itself? Geesh, it's like some believed they are supposed to rid of all their weapons and be sitting ducks. How nice.

[Tombstone RJ]

I was shocked to learn from Ron Paul that the House overwhelmingly passed a bill last week to impose sanctions on Iran.

Where are the American people? Why have they not weighed in?

Apparently the peace movement is dead. Which is exactly what I've been saying. It died last January with the Israeli genocide in Gaza. We are a nation of sheep, which is a cowardly animal.

Now the Zionist push for yet another war -- has gained new momentum.

MHG


Iran Sanctions Are a Precursor to War

By Ron Paul

December 22, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- Last week the House overwhelmingly approved a measure to put a new round of sanctions on Iran. If this measure passes the Senate, the United States could no longer do business with anyone who sold refined petroleum products to Iran or helped them develop their ability to refine their own petroleum. The sad thing is that many of my colleagues voted for this measure because they felt it would deflect a military engagement with Iran. I would put the question to them, how would Congress react if another government threatened our critical trading partners in this way? Would we not view it as asking for war?

This policy is pure isolationism. It is designed to foment war by cutting off trade and diplomacy. Too many forget that the quagmire in Iraq began with an embargo. Sanctions are not diplomacy. They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade. It is ironic that people who decry isolationism support actions like this.

If a foreign government attempted to isolate the US economically, cut off our supply of gasoline, or starve us to death, would it cause Americans to admire that foreign entity? Or would we instead unite under the flag for the survival of our country?

We would not tolerate foreign covert operations fomenting regime change in our government. Yet our CIA has been meddling in Iran for decades. Of course Iranians resent this. In fact, many in Iran still resent the CIA’s involvement in overthrowing their democratically elected leader in 1953. The answer is not to cut off gasoline to the Iranian people. The answer is to stay out of their affairs and trade with them honestly. If our operatives were no longer in Iran, they would no longer be available as scapegoats for the regime to, rightly or wrongly, blame for every bad thing that happens. As bad as other regimes may be, it is up to their own people to deal with them so they can achieve true self-determination. When foreigners instigate regime change, the new government they institute is always perceived as serving the interest of the overthrowing country, not the people. Thus we take the blame for bad governance twice. Instead we should stay out of their affairs altogether.

With the exception of the military industrial complex, we all want a more peaceful world. Many are hysterical about the imminent threat of a nuclear Iran. Here are the facts: Iran has never been found out of compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) they signed. However, being surrounded by nuclear powers one can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfully. After all, we don’t sanction nuclear capable countries. We take diplomatic negotiations a lot more seriously, and we frequently send money to them instead. The non-nuclear countries are the ones we bomb. If Iran was attempting to violate the non-proliferation treaty, they could hardly be blamed, since US foreign policy gives them every incentive to do so.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Haaaaahahahah!

gaf quoting a republican! But, but, but.... republicans are part of the neocons and the military industrial complex and everything that is wrong, right gaf?

(oh wait, gaf likes repubs when they see the world as he does)

[rastaman]

LOL Obama doesn't have the guts to attack Iran. The threat of sanctions are just so when the election comes around he can say he is working on it diplomatically. If he does nothing it would hurt how the country see's him, it would weaken him. If he attacks he will probably regret it. So the smart move is sanctions that have no teeth, but look good on the news.

Meh! We need to bring back the draft. We have all these warmongering citizens here in the U.S. who aren't being given ample opportunity to give their lives and become cannon fodder for the Corporate Defense War Industry....and thats not fair. Just think about all those men and women btwn the the ages of 17-32 who cheer lead for war and invading soverign countries can finally get an opportunity to spill some blood and kill people in 3rd world country's around the globe. After all, the U.S. war machines sure could use the brains of all those college students and the athletic brawn of college football and basketball to help FIGHT THE WAR ON TERROR.ROFL!

What are we waiting for.....BRING BACK THE DRAFT YOUR COUNTRY'S CORPORATE WAR INDUSTRYS needs your blood and guts.;)

[rastaman]

dude your idea is to let Iran build bombs and create a nuclear deterance of mutual destruction like we have with Russia and the USA. Ummmmm ok bro whatever, you are right you have great ideas.

Haven't you heard Cutty, the U.S. does not attack or invade country's that have Nukes! Sounds like a 3rd world country that can obtain or build nuclear weapons don't have to worry about getting invaded or their resources stolen and exploited by the west.:angel:

[mhgaffney]

Tombstone,

Your screen name does fit your posts.

For quite some time I have been developing color blindness when it comes to political affiliation. Party has never meant so little.

In the run up to the last election I found much to like about Ron Paul -== and much to like about Dennis Kucinich -- who works across the aisle. I could have voted for either man.

Needless to say, no man of quality has an honest chance in our system. Which has been perverted by the money flowing from men obsessed with their own greed and power.

FYI, I am not a Democrat. I am a radical.

MHG

[watermock]

Goverments or Empires no longer exist, just MNC's.

Money exists, and the dollar is collapsing.

Debt rulees the world.



Shiat, i you don't believe me, look at Dubai.

An island of oil, and they are 90 Billion in arrears.

And I thought Allah never charched interest
!

[mhgaffney]

So Israel is threatening countries with nukes all the time just because? If Israel had nukes for anything other than defense, they would have been using them by now. But it's muslim countries that seem interested in attaining nukes and making threats to Israel all the time, so surprised Israel is worried about protecting itself? Geesh, it's like some believed they are supposed to rid of all their weapons and be sitting ducks. How nice.

Israel is threatening not just countries -- but the planet. If Samson brings down the columns it will affect every living human -- indeed -- every living thing.

You display your ignorance. Israel's development of H-bombs cannot be for defense. There is no defensive H-bomb. The very expression is an oxymoron.

If you had a ruthless barbaric neighbor armed to the teeth with nukes, chemical, bio and conventional weapons, a neighbor who coveted YOUR land, -- would YOU be interested in obtaining a similar weapon?

I hasten to add. None of Israel's neighbors have even a nuclear program -- let alone the bomb.

[watermock]

I think a Kucinich/Paul ticket may work.

[watermock]

Jesus Gaff.

Welcome to 1970.

[watermock]

I hasten to add. None of Israel's neighbors have even a nuclear program -- let alone the bomb.

That is comical.

[mhgaffney]

Comical maybe to you. But still true.

Egypt gave up its nuclear aspirations long ago.

Iraq's nuclear program was dismantled after the first Gulf War.

Libya gave up its nuclear program during the Bush years.

Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and S Arabia have no nuclear program.

If anyone has information to the contrary -- please post.

[cutthemdown]

Comical maybe to you. But still true.

Egypt gave up its nuclear aspirations long ago.

Iraq's nuclear program was dismantled after the first Gulf War.

Libya gave up its nuclear program during the Bush years.

Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and S Arabia have no nuclear program.

If anyone has information to the contrary -- please post.

That's good. Let's add Iran to that list of yours. Israel, well I'm just not really worried they will drop a nuke on America. What do you think? Probably more likely they only drop it if the Arab armies attacked and were overwhelming them. By giving Iran a bomb you make the likelihood of a non nuclear war much more possible IMO.

It's not like Soviet Union/America nuclear standoff. It's much different IMO.

[mhgaffney]

I'm not giving Iran anything. I hasten to remind you -- again -- there is no hard evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

The evidence only supports the conclusion that Iran is keeping its options open. Meaning that they are determined to have their own uranium enrichment program. They are a long way from showing they can enrich uranium to 90+%.

The uranium fuel for reactors -- to generate electricity -- is enriched only around 3%.

[mhgaffney]

Cut,

A US military Colonel did this study of Israel's nuclear agenda -- and mentions the possibility of nuclear blackmail/

He did me the honor of borrowing his title from my 1989 book DIMONA THE THIRD TEMPLE.

This is worthwhile reading. It's a serious issue -- and you need to have your facts in order.

THE THIRD TEMPLE'S HOLY OF HOLIES:
ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm

Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army

The Counterproliferation Papers

Future Warfare Series No. 2

USAF Counterproliferation Center

Air War College

Air University

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama

September 1999

[mhgaffney]

Here is a short discussion about Israel's nukes from chapter 11 of my 2008 book THE 9/11 MYSTERY PLANE:

Israel's Nuclear Agenda

For many years the shared wisdom was that nuclear weapons might be justified in Israel’s case, due to the country’s unique security problems, having to do with Israel’s small size. Nukes might be acceptable, so the thinking went, because Israel would then feel secure enough to negotiate a lasting peace settlement with its neighbors. But it hasn’t worked out that way. As it happened, a strong Israel simply had no incentive to negotiate. Period.

In in a thoughtful article that appeared in Ha’aretz in September 2005, Baruch Kimmerling, a professor at Hebrew University, conceded what scholars have long known: that the country’s nuclear weapons are linked to Israel’s illegal military occupation of the Arab West Bank. As Kimmerling phrased it, Israel’s nukes “in the basement are a guarantee that no pressure, foreign or domestic...can force Israel into genuine territorial concessions.” Clearly, Kimmerling’s assessment is correct: For many years the country’s nuclear monopoly has tempted Israel’s nation’s leaders to forego negotiations and simply to impose their will upon the neighborhood. This explains the expanding settlements, the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the security wall, the cantonization of the West Bank, and the recent unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. And why else would Israel dismiss a 2002 Saudi peace initiative that offered not just recognition but full normalized relations, including full trade, economic ties, cultural exchanges, in short, an end to the conflict, if Israel would abide by UN Security Council resolutions on Palestine?

It is clear to this writer that there will be no diplomatic solution on Iran nor on the peace front so long as our own leaders view Israel’s nukes as a non issue, the underlying assumption being, of course, that Israel needs them to survive. Others pooh-pooh the matter but in my opinion this is the crux of it. We need a rude awakening, and let us pray it does not come in the form of a mushroom cloud. The truth is that Israel’s nukes are weapons of mass destruction, pure and simple, whose very existence is a moral obscenity, just like all such weapons, an affront to God and every living thing on this planet. We need to start thinking about them in these terms.

Of course, Israel’s supporters invariably downplay the dangers. They rationalize the shocking fact that Israel has targeted a large swathe of humanity with annihilation by arguing that Israel’s WMDs are not a concern since Israel has neither used its nukes nor threatened to use them; and anyway the arsenal is necessary for Israel’s survival in a tough neighborhood.

But no matter how often these phony arguments are repeated the facts cannot be made to support them. If Israel possessed a few atomic weapons of last resort the Samson option (as Sy Hersh refers to it) might be reasonable. However, the vast size of Israel’s weapons arsenal, the strong likelihood it includes hydrogen bombs, tactical nukes including neutron weapons, and a multiple array of advanced delivery vehicles, including nuclear-armed cruise missiles, not to mention chemical and biological weapons, indicates that Israel’s policy is not primarily defensive in nature.

The large size of Israel’s arsenal is probably due, in part, to the technological imperative. Israel’s war economy developed a momentum of its own. But this is a flimsy excuse and no justification. Israel’s WMDs are clearly meant to project power and to this extent they have already been used. One need not pull the trigger of a revolver to use it, and the same is true of the bomb. The people of the Mideast understand this very well. After all, they have lived in the long shadow of Israel’s arsenal of 200-400 nukes for many years.

[watermock]

You mean Israel has the H-Bomb?

Call the CIA.

[watermock]

Even the stones were broken.

[Tombstone RJ]

Tombstone,

Your screen name does fit your posts.

For quite some time I have been developing color blindness when it comes to political affiliation. Party has never meant so little.

In the run up to the last election I found much to like about Ron Paul -== and much to like about Dennis Kucinich -- who works across the aisle. I could have voted for either man.

Needless to say, no man of quality has an honest chance in our system. Which has been perverted by the money flowing from men obsessed with their own greed and power.

FYI, I am not a Democrat. I am a radical.

MHG

gaf, if your going to bad mouth Israel, you are not going to get any respect from me.

You claim to be a "radical" and that garners no respect from me, because you have no solutions.

A good radical always has a better way, and you don't have anything.

Fact is, you don't know what you want. All you want to do is claim a bunch of crap (conspiracy theory crap) and point out how everyone else but you is niave on how the world works.

But you don't have any solutions and offer nothing of substance.

[cutthemdown]

A lot of things Gaff says are probably somewhat true. I'm sure we have done some nasty things to the Palestinians and Arabs in general. We did screw Iran over more then once etc etc.

My point is countries that small would be better off trying to kiss the ass of the superpowers. At least one of them. It's just smart govt. Iran is starting to isolate themselves from even China and Russia. If that happend Gaff it's just like the Palestinians in the late 40's. Not one superpower was on there side, and look what happened.

[cutthemdown]

It's just Gaff refuses to acknowledge mistakes by the people he supports, it makes him seem one sided and stubborn. You then come off as someone no one will listen to because they know you will never listen to them or change your mind on anything.

[mhgaffney]

Cut,

You try to put words in my mouth. Quit jumping to conclusions. I say what I mean and mean what I say.

You make the HUGE mistake of identifying with the US power elite -- and with US policy -- even though, just like the average American, you don't have a clue what that policy actually is.

They don't tell the people the real policy -- the real goals. If they did the people would revolt.

Get your ego out of it. The bastards who make the policy -- behind the scenes -- don't give a hoot about you. They don't give a hoot about freedom and democracy. They don't care a whit about the US Constitution. They could care less about apple pie and motherhood.

They are driven solely by their lust for power - and by greed. They do not deserve your respect and support.

I am astonished that guys like you can't figure this out.

MHG

[mhgaffney]

they are evil -- and you need to face it.

[Dukes]

Funny how Gaff completely side-steps post #51

[mhgaffney]

I did not side step # 51.

It's total bull crap. How do you respond to that?

Sometimes silence is the best, indeed, the only, way.

[Dukes]

Hilarious! Sure Gaff

[Requiem]

It was a post from Tombstone. Of course he side-stepped it. As much as I disagree with Gaffney on some things, I can see why he ignored it.

[cutthemdown]

Iran about to plunge into a full on bloody civil war. All we have to do is wait it out and hopefully make friends with the revolutionaries.

It's happening, Iranian hardliners are losing control of the people.

Hey Gaff do you think the nephew of Mousavi was shot by Iranian security, govt thugs, or was it CIA's way of fomenting the revolution? I know you don't know just asking what your crazy gut is telling you?

I could see it. CIA I agree with you, they are deliciously evil.

[cutthemdown]

anyone think Obama could approve of the CIA having an opposition leaders nephew killed and making it look like he's a martyr?

[mhgaffney]

Mousavi is NOT the reformer you think he is. You are dreaming.

[Tombstone RJ]

I did not side step # 51.

It's total bull crap. How do you respond to that?

Sometimes silence is the best, indeed, the only, way.

I stand by that post that you have ignored. You claim to be a radical but you stand for nothing. You only rail against whatever you don't agree with which I can maybe understand, but you offer no solutions.

Your a rebel without a cause.

Go ahead, radical, show everyone here a better way.

[Requiem]

What solutions do you offer to anything, TJ? What do you actually do that has political relevance to actually make your ideas come to fruition? Probably nothing. At least you like Helmet.

[Tombstone RJ]

What solutions do you offer to anything, TJ? What do you actually do that has political relevance to actually make your ideas come to fruition? Probably nothing. At least you like Helmet.

Do a search of some of my posts here. I always offer solutions.

[mhgaffney]

Tombstone,

You should check me out BEFORE you open your big yap.

I have been outspoken -- and CLEAR -- about what I stand for -- for a very long time.

I suggest you check out my web sites -- and/or google me. You will find more than you ever wanted to know about what Mark H Gaffney stands for.

www.gnosticsecrets.com
www.the911mysteryplane.com


Keep trying -- the 911 site has been under attack -- lately -- and is sometimes down.

[Tombstone RJ]

Tombstone,

You should check me out BEFORE you open your big yap.

I have been outspoken -- and CLEAR -- about what I stand for -- for a very long time.

I suggest you check out my web sites -- and/or google me. You will find more than you ever wanted to know about what Mark H Gaffney stands for.

www.gnosticsecrets.com
www.the911mysteryplane.com


Keep trying -- the 911 site has been under attack -- lately -- and is sometimes down.

Your a conspiracy theory person?

[Tombstone RJ]

gaf, I'm arguing here on the Mane. I'll keep my arguments here. If you can't do that also, then fine. I don't have the time to generate web sites, sorry.

[cutthemdown]

Mousavi is NOT the reformer you think he is. You are dreaming.

Oh I know that. But maybe he would make a better deal then the guy there now and try harder to get sanctions lifted.