Posted on 06/28/2007 8:59:38 AM PDT by Contentions
Good news from Iran. The Associated Press reports that “Iranians smashed shop windows and set fire to a dozen gas stations in the capital Wednesday, angered by the sudden start of a fuel rationing system that threatens to further increase the unpopularity of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.” Why is this good news? Because it reveals the unpopularity of the theocratic dictatorship in Tehran, and its vulnerability to pressure.
As the AP article goes on to note: “The rationing is part of a government attempt to reduce the $10 billion it spends each year to import fuel that is then sold to Iranian drivers at less than cost, to keep prices low. Iran is one of the world’s biggest oil producers, but it doesn’t have enough refineries, so it must import more than 50 percent of the gasoline its people use.”
That’s a point of leverage that various analysts have suggested exploiting. In the pages of COMMENTARY, Arthur Herman argued for (among other things) imposing a naval blockade to stop the gasoline imports and oil exports that are the lifeblood of the Iranian economy. In USA Today this week, Peter Schweizer of the Hoover Institution suggested not only imposing a blockade, but also counterfeiting Iranian currency to drive its economy deeper into crisis.
Those may seem like radical steps. But they are in fact amply justified by Iran’s continuing development of nuclear weapons and its support for terrorists in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan, among other places. Iranian proxies have been killing Americans in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and yet we have been looking the other way for fear of seeming too “warlike.” Even if we don’t have the political will to meet Iranian attacks with military force—and we don’t at this point—we could still try to make the Iranian government pay a price for its aggression. An embargo would be one way to do it. It’s an act of war, but not as extreme as air strikes.
Even if we’re not prepared to go that far yet, greater economic sanctions could have an impact given another fact noted in the AP story: “Iran’s government is seeking $12 billion in investments to boost refining capacity from 1.6 million barrels a day to 2.9 million barrels in the next five years. It also hopes to increase oil production to 5.3 million barrels a day by 2014, from the current 4.3 million.” If the U.S. could convince other countries in Europe and Asia to join our boycott of Iran, the investment that the mullahs need to buy off their own people might not be forthcoming.
That’s the intent of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, a bill sponsored by Representative Tom Lantos, which just passed in the House Foreign Affairs Committee by a vote of 37-1. Among other things, it would end the President’s authority to waive penalties under existing sanctions laws on companies that do business with Iran. (This waiver authority has been used to let European firms off the hook.) Unfortunately, the Bush administration, which talks tough on Iran, opposes this genuinely tough legislation.
Economic sanctions don’t work for the same reason socialism doesn’t work. It’s a govermentally imposed artificial restraint of market forces, and any government that pursues an economic policy contrary to market forces is backing a bad business plan.
The idea of flooding the country with counterfeit money is intriguing, though.
what did slick willie used to say? “It’s the economy, stupid?”
Would he be considered the bride of Satan?
I've always proposed the really-serious idea of dropping via parachute crates of porno mags, Metallica CDs, and jars of bacon-bits.
It's cheaper than bombs, it gets the crazies to destroy their own property, and best of all, it's funny to watch.
“Unfortunately, the Bush administration, which talks tough on Iran, opposes this genuinely tough legislation.”
Is this the bad news...?
Iran does not refine enough oil to meet their own demand. While a major oil producer, they actually have to import refined oil. Their military is “highly” dependent on imports since they have the money to buy weapons, but lack the infrastructure and technology to build much themselves. However, like with Iraq, it is very likely that the Russians as many others will still ensure their stuff “seeps” into Iran somehow. Money talks, and the Russians don’t care. On the other hand, times have changed since 1991/2001. The political map of the Middle East looks very different today, and so do the country’s surrounding Iran. The ability to really squeeze them, if we wanted too, is there. Those wanting to play games will find it harder today than in the past.
The real power brokers in Iran is 83 or 86 clerics who basically run the show. What they think matters as they set the course and agenda for the whole nation. Their President is nothing but a mouthpiece they set out front and tell what to say. He's there to put on a tie when he travels and have a title "President". There is nothing presidential about Iran's president, he's a "spokesperson". The power brokers in Iran are like the despot regimes everywhere else. These people live in opulent abundance. They get their virgins before they die! :) They want to stay in power, and as pressure mounts, they may change course because they see threatened. Ultimately this war we are fighting in Iraq, the reason why N. Korea or Iran are closed societies, why even in Saudi Arabia they censor Western publications etc is because this is a larger struggle between cultures when viewed at a macro level. A struggle that will leave the power brokers currently in this part of the world on the curb, and they know this. What is to be of that Mufti in a free society with a democratic process where judges are lawyers and voted into office and/or selected through a political process? In the grand scheme, this battle is about culture. At the smaller and more micro level, we today simply want Iran to stop developing nukes, quit meddling in Iraq, and cut off aid to terror groups. can the embargo have an effect? Maybe, let's see.
Very nice post, well thought out and I agree with it.
One of the fundamental differences between Islamic and Christian socieities is that the Koran does not have any equivalent of Luke 20:25 or Romans 13:1-6. The mullahs do not recognize the existence of a separate secular authority responsible for the affairs of this world. Thus, Islamic society is subservient to the leaders of a religion mired in the 7th Century, trying to set modern public policy. The differences cannot be squared.
No wonder there is friction between them and every other modern society they come into contact with.
Good stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.