3 Myths About the Iran Conflict

The Washington Post ^ | February 7, 2006 | By Mel Levine, Alex Turkeltaub and Alex Gorbansk

[Brux]

· Myth 1: Economic sanctions would hurt the West more than Iran. The premise of this argument is that any sanctions imposed on Tehran would result in a dramatic rise in oil prices, hurting the economies of Western countries and undermining public support for the sanctions.

But while Iran holds the world's second-largest reserves of oil and gas and is the fourth-largest oil producer, it is in fact a net importer of refined oil products, including gasoline. And internal consumption of oil products in Iran is growing by 5.2 percent a year, far faster than its ability to increase refining capacity. This means that the levels of imports necessary to make the Iranian economy function will only increase over time. Thus, sanctions that prevented Iran from importing, say, refined oil products, including gasoline, could bring its economy to a grinding halt. Perhaps more important, the subsequent shortages would disproportionately affect President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's political base, the urban underclass and lower-middle class, as well as the military.

No doubt there would be some cost to Western countries if Iran chose to retaliate by lowering or shutting down its oil production. But Iran would be unlikely to halt oil production for long, because under sanctions, it would depend more than ever on oil revenue to maintain its grip on power: As the economic situation in Iran worsened in response to sanctions, the government would have to rely on handouts and state assistance to maintain loyalty and support from the army and the general population....

· Myth 2: Russia and China would never go along with sanctions...

· Myth 3: Iran might respond to sanctions by irrationally lashing out at Israel and other U.S. allies. ...

[MNJohnnie]

Name 3 instances where UN Sanctions have produced a change in behavior in a Rouge State.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Name 3 instances where UN Sanctions have produced a change period.

[MNJohnnie]

Brux Since Jan 22, 2006

Curious that such a newbie posts Leftist tripe.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Oh heck; name 1 instance where UN Sanctions have produced a change.

[Brux]

I find the reasoning in this article very sound. It shows the Iranian threat could be as hallow as the new president's head.

[MNJohnnie]

Hmmmmm now that IS a tough question. Not only that, Considering Oil for Food Scandal, name one time the UN has actually imposed real sanctions?

[Zavien Doombringer]

Hey..He may be new and his interests only in the Iran threads, give him a shot... His postings in other threads aren't trollish...

[penelopesire]

The author:

"Mel Levine, a former Democratic representative from California, is with an international law firm. Alex Turkeltaub and Alex Gorbansky are managing directors at Frontier Strategy Group, a consultancy on the natural resources industries."

FACT #1..never believe a word that comes out of a democrat's mouth.....lol

[misterrob]

The showdown with Iran over nuclear weapons is a difficult situation with few appealing options. But there are steps that can be taken to change Iran's calculations about the benefits of a nuclear weapons program. And while many of the options available could have significant effects on the global economy, the consequences for Iran would be far worse.

Mel Levine, a former Democratic representative from California, is with an international law firm. Alex Turkeltaub and Alex Gorbansky are managing directors at Frontier Strategy Group, a consultancy on the natural resources industries.

---

He actually had some good points to make but his conclusion sucks. You cannot negotiate with people who think the way the Iranian President does. A blockade might make sense if it could produce the desired result of a coup which would be in everyone's interest. China and Russia gain nothing if all out war breaks out and the global economy goes to hell in a handbasket.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

" It shows the Iranian threat could be as hallow as the new president's head."

referring to the Iran, I suppose.

[Bigh4u2]

That's what I took it to mean.

[TheDon]

Sanctions are wishful thinking. We can't afford to engage in wishful thinking when a terrorist state is about to acquire nuclear weapons.

[joe fonebone]

Vote YES on Lake Iran.............

[Brux]

Thanks for the BG check. There are a lot of people who are afraid of getting tough on Iran because of the economical consequences and the other two myths the authors have addressed in their article. It shows there is nothing to fear. In a tough policy against Iran they collapse at no time. I don't rule out the need to kick a$$ if needed.

[tje]

Boy, I can just see another 'Oil For Food' fiasco in the works..

[penelopesire]

"It shows there is nothing to fear..."

There is much to fear about the whole crisis, but fear should not stop the world from confronting the threat.

[rlmorel]

LOL! Not to be a spelling Nazi, but I thought that misspell of "Rogue" was kind of funny...

I'm thinking of the "Rouge" states out there, and...France would have to be one of them...

Sorry-I just thought that was kind of a funny misspell, with the UN being involved and all...:)

[MNJohnnie]

You right, that was funny without meaning too!

[layman]

Iran's economy is heavily dependent on oil exports which comprise about three percent of world consumption. A three percent drop in world supply would have a short term effect on prices, but it would be devastating to Iran's economy. IMO they are blowing smoke when they threaten to shut off the oil spigot.