Support NeoGAF

[theignoramus]

Placing sanctions on Iran`s central bank is an extremely hostile act, arguably an act of war. Many ordinary Iranians will suffer and it`s unlikely the regime will change its behaviour. (see North Korea, Saddam era Iraq)
Should the Obama admin enact this legislation, some form of military confrontation with Iran isnt a matter of if, it`s a matter of when. (again, see Saddam era Iraq)
Below is an aggregate of useful information and key highlights of the timeline in Iran`s relations with the US.
http://www.piie.com/realtime/?p=2560

Financial sanctions, including several directed at leading Iranian banks, have been applied and tightened over the years by the United States Treasury, working with European and other allies. Now the Senate has unanimously approved a bill calling on the President to impose stiff new financial sanctions directed at the Central Bank of Iran (CBI). The Obama administration opposed the measure, however, arguing that it would be counterproductive and alienate key allies who have been cooperating in the campaign to isolate Tehran.

The financial sanctions already in place and approved by the United Nations target Iranian banks that facilitate payments for nuclear technology and hardware. These sanctions can probably be credited with impeding Iran’s weapons quest. In fact, according to our scorecard which covers more than 200 sanctions episodes over the past century, financial sanctions have a better chance of securing compliance by the target country than export or import restrictions. We rate them at least partly successful in 36 percent of cases, whereas the success rate for trade sanctions is only 25 percent.

In past episodes, however, the objective of financial sanctions was to deny the target country concessional assistance from abroad—usually bilateral aid or World Bank money. In the Iranian case, the Senate’s objective is to interrupt commercial payments for Iran’s oil exports. Put another way, the proposed sanctions on the CBI—which handles almost all Iranian receipts for oil sales but has not been implicated in financing nuclear weaponry—would be an indirect way of hampering Iranian exports of petroleum, which account for 85 percent of its foreign exchange. Some Congressmen are also advocating a ban on certification of Iranian ships and oil rigs, as an additional means of hampering Iranian oil exports.

The Obama Administration, seeking to control the extent and pace of sanctions, argues that the Senate measure could spike the price of oil and fracture the US-led coalition that has so far been willing to pressure Iran using other measures. (The Administration has not yet commented on the certification ban.) Broad sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran are not likely to gain the approval of the UN Security Council. Unspoken, but in everyone’s mind, is the high probability that Pakistan, India, and China, along with several smaller importers, would ignore CBI sanctions imposed by the United States and European powers.

Nevertheless, even without others going along, CBI sanctions imposed by the United States alone would disrupt Iran’s economy for the months required to re-route petroleum shipments from current destinations to an array of new markets, centered in Asia.

A recent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran's nuclear program has prompted fresh sanctions from Western states. The United States designated Iran's entire financial sector as a "primary money laundering concern" in November, but does not mandate sanctions against the central bank. The Obama administration fears such a measure will alienate allies and cause oil prices to rise, providing Tehran with a windfall. But the Senate unanimously voted on December 1 to sanction the bank and foreign financial institutions that do business with it.

With concern mounting about Iran's nuclear program--despite Iran's insistence that it is a peaceful one--Washington is looking for ways to deter it from making a nuclear bomb. A number of analysts believe sanctioning the central bank is "the most powerful weapon in the U.S. economic arsenal" .


Iran is the world's third largest exporter of crude oil; its oil exports make up 80 percent of its total exports and account for half of government revenues. With most of this revenue being funneled through the central bank, sanctioning it could devastate the country's economy.

But such a move could shrink global oil supply and push up prices. By preventing countries from doing business with Iran's central bank, the main conduit for receipts of oil sales, it would limit Iran's oil exports. Tehran warned that any effort to block its oil exports would more than double crude prices to above $250 a barrel. Plus, U.S. officials say it is unclear whether these sanctions would affect Iran's exports to China, its biggest buyer of oil. David Cohen, the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that "it is quite possible that the Chinese, if this amendment were adopted, would take the risk essentially that we would cut off their financial institutions from the United States but I am just not in a position to predict exactly how the Chinese would react."

There is also little consensus among experts on the efficacy of sanctions. An August 2011 IMF report cast doubts on whether sanctions are harming the economy, noting growth rates spurred by high oil prices and economic reforms. Even experts who believe sanctions have taken a toll on Iran's economy, like Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution , say they have failed to influence regime behavior on the nuclear program.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jayshree-bajoria/iran-central-bank_b_1133836.html


A useful timeline of events leading up to current tensions with Iran
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/12/02/f-iran-timeline.html

Some key moments:

1951 — Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadegh oversees the nationalization of the oil industry, dominated by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Britain responds by imposing a trade embargo on Iran.

1953 — After a failed attempt to dismiss Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadegh, the shah flees to Rome. A few days later, the U.S. and U.K. orchestrate a coup that ousts Mossadegh and installs the shah as the new leader, hoping he'll serve as a bulwark against Soviet influence in the Middle East

Jan. 1963 — The shah launches a series of economic, land and social reforms aimed at Westernizing the country and known as the White Revolution. Those who oppose the reforms are ruthlessly silenced with the aid of the shah's secret police force, SAVAK.

June 1963 — Ruhollah Khomeini, a Shia scholar and vocal critic of the Western-backed regime of the shah, is arrested after making a speech denouncing the shah and U.S. influence in Iran.

Nov. 1964 — Khomeini is sent into exile, from where he continues to denounce the shah through writings and lectures.

Sept. 1978 — The shah imposes martial law in the face of growing demonstrations and strikes opposing his authoritarian rule.

Jan. 16, 1979 — With opposition getting fiercer, the shah and his wife flee to Egypt.

Feb. 1979 – Exiled Islamic religious leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returns to Iran and assumes control of the country.

April 1, 1979 — The new Islamic Republic is declared after a national referendum on whether or not to make Iran an Islamic republic. A committee of experts is convened to draft the new constitution, and it is this committee, made up in large part of Shia clerics and members of the Islamic Republican Party, that establishes the cleric-dominated system of rule and declares Khomeini the first supreme leader of the new theocratic republic.

Nov. 4 1979 —Islamic revolutionaries take more than 60 Americans hostage at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, demanding the extradition of the shah, who was in the U.S. undergoing cancer treatment, to Iran to stand trial. Some hostages are released but 52 remain held for 444 days.

April 7, 1980 — The U.S. cuts all diplomatic ties with Iran.

April 25, 1980 — A secret attempt to free the U.S. embassy hostages fails spectacularly. Two of the American helicopters charged with carrying out the rescue run into engine trouble and a third is damaged during a landing. The mission is aborted, but while departing two helicopters crash, killing eight U.S. soldiers. The incident is a major blow for the administration of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who suffers a massive defeat in the presidential election a few months later.

1980-88 — Iran-Iraq war. In September 1980, Iraqi forces invaded Iran, whose new post-revolution Islamist government was seen as a threat by Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein. The invasion set off a brutal eight-year-long conflict that devastated both countries and ultimately ended in a draw. Hundreds of thousands of people died — possibly as many as 1.5 million. The U.S. under the Reagan administration sided with Iraq in the conflict, sharing intelligence and providing food credits and funds.***

***

THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.'

This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.

Jan. 20, 1981 — The 52 remaining U.S. embassy hostages are released on the day of U.S. President Ronald Reagan's inauguration.

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.
(Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992)

November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians.
(Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002)

December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support.

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application.

1985 — In what became known as the Iran-Contra Affair, the U.S. made a deal to secretly sell weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of hostages being held by the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran needed the weapons to fund its war with Iraq, and the U.S., which was officially forbidden from selling arms to Iran, diverted part of the secret funds to CIA-backed guerillas in Nicaragua known as the Contras, who were trying to overthrow the leftist Sandinista regime. In the end only three U.S. hostages of several dozen were released — and three more were taken not long after.

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons.

1987 — British chargé d'affaires Edward Chaplin is kidnapped in Tehran by revolutionary guards and held for 24 hours over Britain's perceived support of Iraq. The UK withdraws all staff.

July 1988 — A U.S. warship patrolling the Persian Gulf mistakes an Iranian passenger jet for an F-14 fighter and shoots it down, killing 290 passengers and crew. Iran vows to "avenge the blood of our martyrs."

July 1988 — Iran and Iraq sign a UN-brokered ceasefire agreement, ending eight years of war.

June 3, 1989 — Ayatollah Khomeini dies and is replaced by then president Ali Khamenei.
May 1995 — U.S. adopts sanctions banning trade with and investment in Iran, in response to the ramping up of Iran's nuclear program and its support of organizations the U.S. considers terrorist entities such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

May 1997 — Mohammad Khatami, a moderate cleric and former cultural minister, is elected president on a reformist platform in a surprising upset. Despite energizing a large portion of the youth vote, Khatami was not able to push through his reform agenda during his two terms in office and was largely seen as an ineffective president.

Feb. 2000 — Reformers make sweeping gains in the parliamentary elections, winning 170 of 290 seats. It is the first time since 1979 that the hardliners lose control of the legislature.

Jan. 2002 — U.S. President George W. Bush refers to Iran as one of three countries, along with Iraq and North Korea, that constitute an "axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the world" in his first state of the union message.

Nov. 2003 — Iran agrees to suspends it uranium enrichment program and allow tougher UN inspections of its nuclear facilities.

Nov. 2004 — Conservatives win Iran's parliamentary elections, rolling back gains made by reformers just four years earlier.

Nov. 2004 — In an effort to avoid possible UN sanctions, Iran agrees to suspend its uranium enrichment activities after talks with ambassadors from Germany, Britain and France.

June 2005 — Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline major of Tehran, wins presidential elections, dealing a blow to the reformers who had gained some ground in the last election.

Sept. 2005 — The IAEA finds Iran had not taken adequate measures with regard to the safeguarding, processing and use of nuclear material and was in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Dec. 2006 — The UN Security Council votes to adopt sanctions on sales of nuclear materials and technology to Iran.

March 2007 — Fifteen British sailors and marines are held for 13 days after being captured by Iranian authorities in the Shatt al-Arab river between Iraq and Iran.

May 2009 — A U.S. State Department report dubs Iran the "most active state sponsor of terrorism."

June 2009 — Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defeats popular opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi in a disputed presidential election. Massive protests erupt questioning the legitimacy of the election results. The regime's crackdown against the protests, considered to be the biggest show of opposition in 30 years and dubbed the Green Movement, attracts international attention after the death of a female protester named Neda Agha-Soltan is captured on video and posted on YouTube. Between 30 and 80 protesters are believed to have been killed and more than 1,000 wounded.

MUST SEE DOCUMENTARY ON THE GOVERNMENT CRACKDOWN AGAINST THE GREEN MOVEMENT:
LETTERS FROM IRAN

Nov. 2009 — The IAEA passes a resolution condemning Iran for not revealing sooner that it was building a second nuclear enrichment site, located near the city of Qom. Its main enrichment site is at Natanz. The agency says the fact it had lied about the Qom site, which the IAEA said was begun as early as 2002, indicates Iran may be hiding other enrichment facilities.

Jan. 2010 — Nuclear physicist Masoud Ali-Mohammadi is assassinated in Tehran. Iran blames the bomb attack on foreign agents wanting to undermine Iran's nuclear program. Members of the Iranian opposition say it was meant as a warning to those who, like Ali-Mohammadi, had campaigned for opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi in the last election.

May 2010 — Iran makes a deal, brokered by Brazil and Turkey, to send some of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for fuel for its research reactor. The move falls short of satisfying Western powers, since Iran says it won't prevent it from continuing its own enrichment program.

June 2010 — The UN Security Council imposes its fourth round of sanctions on Iran since 2006 after the IAEA releases a report that says Iran has enough nuclear material to build two weapons. Brazil and Turkey vote against the resolution; Lebanon abstains.

Sept. 2010 — A destructive computer worm known as Stuxnet disables several centrifuges at the Natanz uranium-enrichment plant in Iran. The complexity of the cyberattack suggests it was orchestrated by at least one nation state and several experts believe it was a joint action by Israel and the U.S. intended to hobble Iran's nuclear program.

Sept. 2011 —Iran announces that its Russian-built Bushehr nuclear plant has been connected to the national power grid after decades of delay. Construction on Bushehr, billed as the Middle East's first commercial nuclear plant, had first begun under the shah in 1975, but the project was stalled by the revolution, the Iran-Iraq war and opposition from the West.

Oct. 2011 — Two Iranians are charged in U.S. federal court with plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. One of the men is reportedly a member of the Quds Force, an offshoot of the Revolutionary Guards that carries out foreign operations.

Nov. 8, 2011 — The International Atomic Energy Agency releases a report suggesting Iran has been procuring equipment and conducting tests for the purpose of developing a nuclear weapons program. Several countries —mainly the U.S., the U.K. and Canada — react by imposing financial sanctions against Iran, freezing assets and barring financial trade with the country. The EU, however, falls short of barring imports of oil from Iran, which has some of the largest oil reserves in the world and is a key supplier to European countries such as Greece.

Nov. 28, 2011 — Hardline supporters of the Iranian regime ransack the British embassy in Tehran after the U.K. freezes $1.6 billion in Iranian assets and bars U.K. financial institutions from doing business with Iranian banks. In response, Britain cuts diplomatic ties with Iran and expels Iranian diplomats from the U.K. The attacks are believed to have been carried out by the Basij militia, the youth wing of Iran's elite military force, the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Dec. 1, 2011 — The U.S. Senate passes bill allowing the U.S. president to bar foreign financial institutions that do business with the Iranian central bank from having corresponding bank accounts in the U.S. If enacted, the legislation (which is opposed by U.S. President Barack Obama) would go into force in July 2012.

December 16, 2011— Russia's customs agency in Moscow announces that it seized radioactive metal from the luggage of an Iranian passenger bound for Tehran. Russian security agents found 18 pieces of metal at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport after a radiation alert triggered. Gauges show radiation levels are 20 times higher than normal.The radioactive pieces contained Sodium-22, a radioactive isotope of sodium that can be produced in a particle accelerator. However the radioactive pieces are commonly used in medical applications and have no practical use in a nuclear weapons program

December 28,2011— Iran once again threatens to mine the Strait of Hormuz should its oil exports be blocked from the world market

 

[Forever]

Good first post, but are we allowed to have an |OT| for everything? They've been cracking down on that on the gaming side lately.

I doubt very much that Obama would have the balls to attack Iran. The odds of a ground invasion are especially close to nil, it would be a logistical nightmare. It's far more likely that Israel will simply attack the nuclear sites with covert assistance from the Saudis. It'll be a regional tussle, but with American troops out of Iraq there is no longer any threat of Iran attacking US forces on the ground.

That latter point actually makes the Iraqi withdrawal very interesting. You could argue that Obama is pulling our forces out of harm's way when shit does go down.

 

[7aged]

Showdown, you say?

 

[theignoramus]

Good first post, but are we allowed to have an |OT| for everything? They've been cracking down on that on the gaming side lately.

I doubt very much that Obama would have the balls to attack Iran. The odds of a ground invasion are especially close to nil, it would be a logistical nightmare. It's far more likely that Israel will simply attack the nuclear sites with covert assistance from the Saudis. It'll be a regional tussle, but with American troops out of Iraq there is no longer any threat of Iran attacking US forces on the ground.

That latter point actually makes the Iraqi withdrawal very interesting. You could argue that Obama is pulling our forces out of harm's way when shit does go down.

The US is taking forces out of Iraq but adding more troops to its bases in the Gulf, well within range of Iranian missiles. The US military footprint in the region is still massive and its building up in the Gulf, owing to it not getting what it wanted from the Iraqi government.

 

[Steelrain]

I seriously hope this shit doesn't pop off in the next year. I don't need to be called back to active duty.

 

[Evil Benius]

That latter point actually makes the Iraqi withdrawal very interesting. You could argue that Obama is pulling our forces out of harm's way when shit does go down.

I would disagree based on the fact that the timeline for this withdrawal from Iraq has been in place for a long time.

 

[exarkun]

amazing op. Gives a great "welcome to the Iran issue" primer if I have ever seen one.

Also, Iran being attacked would be the first time I know of where the ex-pat community would probably be in favor of it. Whatever it takes, as some of them would say. Though, Iran is nothing like the other other countries that have either been invaded or revolutionized. There is still a significant part of the population that is religious and supports the current government.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

amazing op. Gives a great "welcome to the Iran issue" primer if I have ever seen one.

Also, Iran being attacked would be the first time I know of where the ex-pat community would probably be in favor of it. Whatever it takes, as some of them would say. Though, Iran is nothing like the other other countries that have either been invaded or revolutionized. There is still a significant part of the population that is religious and supports the current government.

Not any Iranian that I know. Being that both my parents are Iranian, I might know a few.

 

[MikeTyson]

Maybe we should just talk with the Iranian people.

Didn't we just end a certain war in a certain somewhere nearby...? hmm

 

[onken]

Not any Iranian that I know. Being that both my parents are Iranian, I might know a few.

Yeah except that means fuck all.

 

[exarkun]

Not any Iranian that I know. Being that both my parents are Iranian, I might know a few.

Mine ran from the country because he was accused of "anti-revolutionary activities" by the current government in 79. lol, so different strokes for different folks.

Squeezing the main banks is...interesting but how does the US and other compute their activities that are in support of nuclear assets?

 

[theignoramus]

Mine ran from the country because he was accused of "anti-revolutionary activities" by the current government in 79. lol, so different strokes for different folks.

Squeezing the main banks is...interesting but how does the US and other compute their activities that are in support of nuclear assets?

I dont know, but targeting the Central Bank of Iran is, by its very nature, indiscriminate economic warfare. Its designed to bring an economy to its knees and inflict pain on everyone.
Some US senators are claiming the sanctions are meant as a stand with the Iranian people being repressed by their government, but this move will hurt ordinary Iranians and put even more power in the hands of the regime, since people will rely on it more heavily for the most basic of necessities. exactly like what happened in Saddam`s Iraq and in North Korea. The regimes just got stronger internally and ordinary people suffered.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Mine ran from the country because he was accused of "anti-revolutionary activities" by the current government in 79. lol, so different strokes for different folks.

Squeezing the main banks is...interesting but how does the US and other compute their activities that are in support of nuclear assets?

Plenty of Iranians want to change the government, but I've never heard anybody of an Iranian background say that attacking the nuclear sites or invading and forcefully overthrowing the government would be a net positive for the actual Iranian people. Let them make their own country their own way.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Yeah except that means fuck all.

Okay then neither does his anecdote, woopedeedoo.

 

[Zinga]

If Israel has nukes and the west turns a blind eye to it, a country which is one of the most vicious and warmongering in the world, whilst the Iranians have not invaded or attacked anyone, I think its the height of hypocrisy to declare war on Iran.

I don't blame Iran for wanting nukes when you have crazies like the Republicans only a few steps from the White House.

 

[Evil Benius]

Plenty of Iranians want to change the government, but I've never heard anybody of an Iranian background say that attacking the nuclear sites or invading and forcefully overthrowing the government would be a net positive for the actual Iranian people. Let them make their own country their own way.

I am sure it totally depends on the circles you find yourself in. I know at least one who supports strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

If Israel has nukes and the west turns a blind eye to it, a country which is one of the most vicious and warmongering in the world, whilst the Iranians have not invaded or attacked anyone, I think its the height of hypocrisy to declare war on Iran.

I don't blame Iran for wanting nukes when you have crazies like the Republicans only a few steps from the White House.

A lot of it comes down to stability and maintaining control of the weapons. I trust the Israelis to not use a nuclear weapon in a first strike just like I really have no worries over the Russians and Chinese having their own. For me Iran falls into the same group as Pakistan as a country I do not want to see as a nuclear armed power at all. The government is too unstable, they have shown a willingness to engage in state sponsored terrorism, and the belief that Israel does not have a right to exist all leads me to be uneasy in regards to them seeking to become a nuclear armed state. Also "seeking nuclear weapons to defend against a US attack due to us developing nuclear weapons" is a weird path to take.

 

[speedpop]

Plenty of Iranians want to change the government, but I've never heard anybody of an Iranian background say that attacking the nuclear sites or invading and forcefully overthrowing the government would be a net positive for the actual Iranian people. Let them make their own country their own way.

Agreed. My uncle's wife is Iranian and she won't set foot back in Iran until she deems the government to change gears. That doesn't mean that she would advocate foreign military against the people, and I imagine her to be terribly upset by it all.

 

[Wazzim]

We can not afford war, we do not want war, we don't have a moral argument for war, we don't have factual arguments for war.

Yet some think we should go to war.

World leaders, you make my brain hurt.

 

[speedpop]

World leaders, you make my brain hurt.

Just remember that a lot of them do it for party promises and re-election campaigns.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Also "seeking nuclear weapons to defend against a US attack due to us developing nuclear weapons" is a weird path to take.

The US staged a coupe at a time when there were no nuclear weapons in Iran. They helped Iraq at a time when there were no nuclear weapons in Iran. You're pretending that Iran has nothing to fear but the West's fear of it getting nuclear weapons.

Edit: I think looking at the OP makes it clear that the period 2000 to 2004 was very crucial in determining today's situation. Reformers started gaining ground and were in control at a time when the West's stance against Iran became increasingly hostile. No doubt that this was a motivator for people to vote back in the hardliners since nationalism and fear always exist together. The Bush administration dropped the ball on a lot of things when it comes to the middle east and the situation we have today when it comes to Iran is partly a product of the extreme hostilities and illegal invasion of Iraq. The world should have taken advantage of a change in leadership in Iran, but I have no doubt that the masterplan in the White house was to eventually invade Iran too from both sides once they stabilized Afghanistan and Iraq. Fools.

 

[amar212]

After knowing a lot about the subject from the European perspective and reading the OP to check the facts:

Oh, USA, you're so silly.

 

[Timedog]

yeah, i really don't think we need to be going to war with another middle eastern country every few years.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

I am sure it totally depends on the circles you find yourself in. I know at least one who supports strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Well I don't think I've ever met somebody who wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, they just support the civilian energy part of the nuclear program.

 

[nib95]

Great OP.

Had no idea of some of the sanctions or seizures in place.

Nov. 28, 2011 — Hardline supporters of the Iranian regime ransack the British embassy in Tehran after the U.K. freezes $1.6 billion in Iranian assets and bars U.K. financial institutions from doing business with Iranian banks. In response, Britain cuts diplomatic ties with Iran and expels Iranian diplomats from the U.K. The attacks are believed to have been carried out by the Basij militia, the youth wing of Iran's elite military force, the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Dec. 1, 2011 — The U.S. Senate passes bill allowing the U.S. president to bar foreign financial institutions that do business with the Iranian central bank from having corresponding bank accounts in the U.S. If enacted, the legislation (which is opposed by U.S. President Barack Obama) would go into force in July 2012.

Thank fuck Obama is opposing that legislation. Otherwise you're essentially agreeing to bar China/Russia and a whole host of other countries and asking for more trouble. The $1.6b that Britain has frozen, what exactly happens to that? Have Britain essentially stolen it? Or is it in limbo?

Well I don't think I've ever met somebody who wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, they just support the civilian energy part of the nuclear program.

Controversial as it may be, I do support Iran having Nuclear weapons myself. It is pretty much the only deterrent to otherwise having your country destroyed and hundreds of thousands of your people murdered, sometimes for the smallest of things or no reason at all. As clearly shown by Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon. Without nukes, Iran, a country that hasn't invaded another nation in what, 300 years? Is basically a sitting duck.

 

[Evil Benius]

The US staged a coupe at a time when there were no nuclear weapons in Iran. They helped Iraq at a time when there were no nuclear weapons in Iran. You're pretending that Iran has nothing to fear but the West's fear of it getting nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are not going to protect against a change in government, even if it is a coup. If anything seeking them is going to put us in the position of trying to bring about another one. Also our plate is fairly full right now and has been for the last ten years so I imagine we would be fairly willing to ignore Iran if they stopped seeking nuclear weapons and toned down the anti-American/Israeli rhetoric.

Also of course we supported Iraq since Iran became such a hostile nation towards the US practically overnight. Hostility used by a government to consolidate power over their people, the same government that some seem to have no issue with acquiring nuclear weapons. Listen I am quite happy with leaving Iran alone if they tone back their terrorism support and stop seeking to become a nuclear state. However I do not see that happening in the near term without a change in government.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I think you're ignoring many events described in the OP to make it seem like Iran has to do but one little tiny thing which will make everything okay. This conflict hasn't been going on for decades simply because of one sides rhetoric or nuclear aspirations.

Edit: I agree that letting go of nuclear aspirations will do a lot, but one only has to look at Iraq to see what can happen even if you do that.

 

[theignoramus]

Nuclear weapons are not going to protect against a change in government, even if it is a coup. If anything seeking them is going to put us in the position of trying to bring about another one. Also our plate is fairly full right now and has been for the last ten years so I imagine we would be fairly willing to ignore Iran if they stopped seeking nuclear weapons and toned down the anti-American/Israeli rhetoric.

Also of course we supported Iraq since Iran became such a hostile nation towards the US practically overnight. Hostility used by a government to consolidate power over their people, the same government that some seem to have no issue with acquiring nuclear weapons. Listen I am quite happy with leaving Iran alone if they tone back their terrorism support and stop seeking to become a nuclear state. However I do not see that happening in the near term without a change in government.

No. The fundamental problem the US has with Iran is that a) Iran seeks to expand its influence b)the Iranian agenda is frequently at odds with the agenda of the US and its allies. Even an Iranian nuclear weapons capability is intolerable to the US and Israel, since even the mere threat and capability of Iran developing a nuclear weapon effects their ability to deploy massive conventional force at will throughout the region.

Iran, and other signatory non-nuclear weapons states of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, are only prohibited from manufacturing nuclear bombs or diverting fissionable material to weapons uses — things Iran has not been accused of doing.
Earlier this year, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, released a new National Intelligence Estimate on the Iranian nuclear program. It presents the consensus view of 16 US intelligence agencies. Though its content is classified, Clapper recently confirmed in Senate questioning that he has a “high level of confidence” that Iran “has not made a decision as of this point to restart its nuclear weapons program.”

This jibes with the intelligence community’s 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, the unclassified version of which publicly stated that Iran wrapped up its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Recent State Department cables provided by WikiLeaks back this up — for example, State Department officials confirmed in 2009 that some previous IAEA reports of suspicious Iranian activities dating to 2004 were “consistent with the 2003 weaponization halt assessment, since some activities were wrapping up in 2004,”

More important, it’s unclear whether Iran was breaking the letter of the law — even when it allegedly carried out research into nuclear weapons-relevant technologies prior to 2004. The NPT is focused on preventing non-nuclear weapons states from manufacturing nuclear weapons. Studying or researching nuclear weapons designs; carrying out computer simulations, or even conducting experiments using conventional high-explosives of the sort that could be used in a nuclear bomb are not specifically proscribed – though such activities would certainly be against the spirit of the treaty.
As for the accountancy of nuclear material in Iran, according to the latest IAEA report, “continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs [locations outside facilities] declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement.” — as it has done every year since IAEA safeguards have been in place in Iran.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68794_Page2.html#ixzz1gbqiHaHA

 

[ReBurn]

After knowing a lot about the subject from the European perspective and reading the OP to check the facts:

Oh, USA, you're so silly.

Nov. 28, 2011 — Hardline supporters of the Iranian regime ransack the British embassy in Tehran after the U.K. freezes $1.6 billion in Iranian assets and bars U.K. financial institutions from doing business with Iranian banks. In response, Britain cuts diplomatic ties with Iran and expels Iranian diplomats from the U.K. The attacks are believed to have been carried out by the Basij militia, the youth wing of Iran's elite military force, the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Dec. 1, 2011 — The U.S. Senate passes bill allowing the U.S. president to bar foreign financial institutions that do business with the Iranian central bank from having corresponding bank accounts in the U.S. If enacted, the legislation (which is opposed by U.S. President Barack Obama) would go into force in July 2012.

Indeed. I guess the European perspective is to just go ahead and impose the sanctions. The US perspective is to vote to give the president power to do it. A power that the president currently claims he has no intention of using, and couldn't use until July 2012.

What I don't understand is your perspective. Are you saying it's a good idea to just impose the sanctions? Or a bad idea to make the president wait half a year before being able to do it?

 

[amar212]

What I don't understand is your perspective. Are you saying it's a good idea to just impose the sanctions? Or a bad idea to make the president wait half a year before being able to do it?

Maybe I should have been more clear - from central European perspective.

Everything US and UK are doing is ridiculous. Let Iran be, come on..

They want to have nuclear power? Why the hell not? I mean, if my country would be rich with oil and wanted do build a atomic-energy systems for various purposes, I would be pissed out of hell if some other countries would come and suck the shit out of my resources for decades and than - after 5 decades of being behind all political shit - continue to stopping me from develop.

Since I live in the country that was once part of Yugoslavia - and we were among the leaders of Non-Aligned movement during past century - I have pretty neutral and objective view about the whole situation on the Middle East.

During 50s and 60s, Yugoslavia also had a plan to develop nuclear-program but the USA managed to internally plot against it and successfully stopped the leadership in further development.

Unfortunately, after India's tests in 70s, Yugoslavia didn't have enough funds to continue the development from the past decade and nothing was ever built. Scarce evidence - all of the documents are still highly classified on all sides - can't really say what are the main reasons for abandoning the program. However, I can safely say how whole war-crisis of 90s in ex-Yugoslavia would went different if country succeeded in becoming a nuclear-power during 60s.

I mean, busting out loud about freedom and crap, and in the same time doing whatever you can to stop some independent country to develop something - just because it doesn't fit your damn subjective and highly private interests - is a little bit FUBAR.

 

[Vilix]

Maybe we should just talk with the Iranian people.

Didn't we just end a certain war in a certain somewhere nearby...? hmm

I believe we've tried that. Obama has done more to reach out to the Iranian government than anyone before him from the US. And they threw it right back in his face.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I believe there have been no serious talks, negotiations, summits or any kind of serious outreaches from any of the sides. Obama's been too busy trying to keep Congress away from the nuclear codes. We all know if they could have their perverted ways, Iran would have been the largest man made lake in existence by now.

 

[ReBurn]

Maybe I should have been more clear - from central European perspective.

Everything US and UK are doing is ridiculous. Let Iran be, come on..

They want to have nuclear power? Why the hell not? I mean, if my country would be rich with oil and wanted do build a atomic-energy systems for various purposes, I would be pissed out of hell if some other countries would come and suck the shit out of my resources for decades and than - after 5 decades of being behind all political shit - continue to stopping me from develop.

Since I live in the country that was once part of Yugoslavia - and we were among the leaders of Non-Aligned movement during past century - I have pretty neutral and objective view about the whole situation on the Middle East.

During 50s and 60s, Yugoslavia also had a plan to develop nuclear-program but the USA managed to internally plot against it and successfully stopped the leadership in further development.

Unfortunately, after India's tests in 70s, Yugoslavia didn't have enough funds to continue the development from the past decade and nothing was ever built. Scarce evidence - all of the documents are still highly classified on all sides - can't really say what are the main reasons for abandoning the program. However, I can safely say how whole war-crisis of 90s in ex-Yugoslavia would went different if country succeeded in becoming a nuclear-power during 60s.

I mean, busting out loud about freedom and crap, and in the same time doing whatever you can to stop some independent country to develop something - just because it doesn't fit your damn subjective and highly private interests - is a little bit FUBAR.

I agree with you. Iran should be able to have nuclear facilities to generate electricity. Any country should.

I also think that the use of nuclear energy and the construction of nuclear facilities needs to be heavily regulated by an international body like the UN through the IAEA and if a country refuses to cooperate should face some sort of sanctions. The US and UK should not be acting unilaterally to sanction Iran in my opinion. It's that kind of action that causes pointless wars. Too bad the UN is such a paper tiger. This is an issue where the world as a whole needs to be working together.

 

[Harry Dresden]

What is it about the middle east that always seems to be in so much shit?

It is media? Foreign meddling? Just the historical trend of the region?

 

[Farooq]

What is it about the middle east that always seems to be in so much shit?

It is media? Foreign meddling? Just the historical trend of the region?

Resources and it's strategic location.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Foreign meddling, the arbitrary borders created by former imperial powers (See Kurdistan and Palestine) and small penis insecurities basically.

 

[Frustrated_me]

That was a great read OP, thanks for outlining the main highlights the past 70 years or so.. Iran sound like it doesnt gives a flying fuck what the US thinks, they're just going with their own flow - can you really blame them?

Also I know many Persians that HAT the current Iranian regime.

 

[theignoramus]

What is it about the middle east that always seems to be in so much shit?

It is media? Foreign meddling? Just the historical trend of the region?

a viciously cruel and corrupt native elite, opportunistic foreign powers that view the region as too geo-strategically important to be left to its own devices and thousand year old religious conflicts between religiously radicalized groups. The whole region should be under a strict arms embargo -to prevent some states from using itheir arms on their own people and to prevent other states from being able to sustain their militant and destructive foreign policies--and declared a nuclear weapons free zone.
In fact the UN resolution the US and UK appealed to support their invasion of Iraq specifically calls for good faith efforts from all regional actors to create a NWFZ, so the US and UK have a unique obligation to enforce all the terms this resolution ,having used it to justify war.

 

[Typhoon_Ex]

I believe we've tried that. Obama has done more to reach out to the Iranian government than anyone before him from the US. And they threw it right back in his face.

Yea because the US talks, talks, talks and then goes to do the same ol' shit.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

Sanctions are doing fine and we should keep them up and let our troops come home and have some peace for a while. I'm not in favor of war with Iran unless we are attacked.

 

[theignoramus]

I agree with you. Iran should be able to have nuclear facilities to generate electricity. Any country should.

I also think that the use of nuclear energy and the construction of nuclear facilities needs to be heavily regulated by an international body like the UN through the IAEA and if a country refuses to cooperate should face some sort of sanctions. The US and UK should not be acting unilaterally to sanction Iran in my opinion. It's that kind of action that causes pointless wars. Too bad the UN is such a paper tiger. This is an issue where the world as a whole needs to be working together.

The problem with the IAEA is that it gets most of its funding from the US, Europe and Japan and is highly vulnerable to the kind of pressure that can turns it into a politicized organization. Were seeing that now with IAEA chair Yuki Amano, whom the State department bragged was in the US corner on every core strategic issue.

 

[theBishop]

Here's one for the OP timeline:

2007 - U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html

 

[Kibbles]

July 1988 — A U.S. warship patrolling the Persian Gulf mistakes an Iranian passenger jet for an F-14 fighter and shoots it down, killing 290 passengers and crew. Iran vows to "avenge the blood of our martyrs."

wow never heard that before, sad

 

[Rocket Scientist]

wow never heard that before, sad

Most people haven't and yea sad =/ I think that's one of the things that shows how deep the tensions between Iran and the US go. The media nowadays paints it very black and white, good guys bad guys, never admitting that both sides have the right to the current mistrust, apprehension and hate. It's why the public opinion in the US will never be based on reality and will only embolden politicians who want nothing but complete control and military interventions.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

If we go to war with Iran, The United States would simply implode. We WILL revolt, there's no fucking way, there's just no fucking way.

 

[alstein]

If we go to war with Iran, The United States would simply implode. We WILL revolt, there's no fucking way, there's just no fucking way.

We'd have a few protests, but we wouldn't implode. It's going to take something that massively, and immediately impacts the vats majority of white, privileged folks under 40 in this country for an implosion to happen.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

We'd have a few protests, but we wouldn't implode. It's going to take something that massively, and immediately impacts the vats majority of white, privileged folks under 40 in this country for an implosion to happen.

i think even the hardest indoctrinated right wingers don't think a war is a good idea, only the big players with something to gain do

 

[Norml]

If we go to war with Iran, The United States would simply implode. We WILL revolt, there's no fucking way, there's just no fucking way.

Not when Iran displays US flags with skulls instead of stars.

I say go to war because China will join to help and they need to go down as well before too late.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Not including its allies. Does Iran have anything capable of attacking the US state-side?

Do they have ICBMs or anything the like that could truly threaten small-town USA?

 

[crazy monkey]

Not when Iran displays US flags with skulls instead of stars.

I say go to war because China will join to help and they need to go down as well before too late.

why are you so eager for war?

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

Not when Iran displays US flags with skulls instead of stars.

I say go to war because China will join to help and they need to go down as well before too late.

not when the U.S. overthrows their country, oh and then when that fails support a proxy war against them per Iraq