Trying for Sanctions Against Iran
The Obama Administration is continuing to be impotent in foreign policy.
The Obama administration is shifting the focus of its Iran policy from talk to sanctions, but the prospect of winning early international support for toughened new penalties appears dim.
Equally problematic is finding a set of sanctions that would have a significant impact on the prime target of American and international worry: Iran’s suspected pursuit of an atom bomb. Three rounds of U.N. sanctions, dating to December 2006 and aimed mainly at squeezing Iran’s nuclear work, have had little apparent effect.
The administration may get an early indication of its prospects at a huddle Friday in Brussels with senior diplomats from the four other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — Russia, China, Britain and France — plus Germany. Any decisions on new Iran sanctions, though, are likely weeks away.
The administration has tried for months to draw Iran into talks to resolve international worries that its declared intent to develop a civilian nuclear power network is cover for a secret nuclear weapons program. But the Iranians have shown little interest, while denying any clandestine nuclear ambition.
I thought the world was supposed to love us now. Not only can we not get any movement in Iran, we can’t even get our allies on board. And sanctions? As the story indicates, that hasn’t exactly been successful in the past with Iran (or North Korea for that matter).
That being said, the Iran problem is a massively complicated issue and there are no good options. But to dither around trying things that have already filed seems senseless.
The administration should have come out swinging the moment Iran tested a medium range missile. I believe that we may have passed the tipping point on this.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125417342102747375.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125412249120545785.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125386629947940443.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125838490199550521.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_world
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1758 hrs
Owen,
What would be the best course of action for the United States to take?
Just curious.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1850 hrs
FaBP -
I think the best course of action would be to move the trial of Khaleid Sheik Mohammed from a military tribunal to a civilian court in New York. That way, as AG Holder has painstakingly made clear, the world will see the superiority of our justice system and respect that we treat all humanely.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1917 hrs
Right…..
Then POTUS can come out and say that he guarantees the KSM will be convicted and put to death. That really shows how fair our system is. And frankly, if I were the defense attorney, the first thing I would do is ask for a change of venue, how do you seat a non-biased jury in NYC?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1924 hrs
And frankly, if I were the defense attorney, the first thing I would do is ask for a change of venue, how do you seat a non-biased jury in NYC?
How do you seat a non-biased jury in the United States? This charade is tired, and the administration should just give it up. To suggest that this guy is going to get a fair trial is patently ridiculous.
A public show trial is much more embarrassing to this nation than a quiet tribunal and a quick execution.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 2016 hrs
I guess it should come as no surprise that the world’s thugs, dictators and Islamic wackos are taking advantage of a this boob who has absolutely no experience other than community agitating. The man never served his country, doesn’t understand the military and has no idea how to handle these strongmen. Combine that with the inexperienced and lefty kooks he has surrounded himself with and you have disaster brewing. Oh ya, Mrs. Clinton is really demonstrating her talents for handling tough situations huh?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 0656 hrs
45acp,
I’m curious to read about your perspectives as to who all the world’s thugs, dictators, and Islamic wackos are and how they are taking advantage of this boob, and what you think the United States should do, and how those actions would improve our standing in the world. I’m not looking to start an argument with anyone on this thread. Only attempting to understand logical perspectives on the subject.
Thanks in advance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 0958 hrs
Wow, ten comment spams in a row! That’s some kind of record for this site!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 1006 hrs
From my perspective, the United States (under both parties) has stood idly by while a belligerent state obtained nuclear technology, and probably nuclear weapons (twice). The difference between NK and Iran is that Ahmadinejad has openly spoken about his belief that Israel (our ally) has no right to exist, and that the holocaust was made up in some sort of manipulation of the jews. I do not believe Iran to be a rational actor in world politics, and that the mullahs and Ahmadinejad are acting purposefully to disrupt the balance of power.
Lets not forget that this administration in particular stood by while a pro democracy movement in that country was put down and crushed by it’s ruthless government. I believe, and this may be a bit “neocon” of me to say, but we should have made something of that revolution-in-the-making. That opportunity is now passed and we have got to do something here, I just don’t think that Iran is going to respond to sanctions and/or diplomacy. Do I advocate all out war with Iran? Possibly, but the appropriate circumstances and a declaration of war must be in place.
The libertarian in me says, “what right do we have to stop Iran from doing as they please.” The realist in me says “the majority of the Iranian people do not want to obliterate a whole nation, and we should have done something while we could to bolster that part of the Iranian populace.”
This is a difficult question, and I think that Joe Biden showed a bit of wisdom on the campaign trail. Iran is testing Obama here, and I think that showing weakness is the wrong way to deal with these people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 1015 hrs
“But to dither around trying things that have already failed seems senseless.” Wrong perspective. You must view everything this administration does through the lens of ” Obama is stupid”, and every move so far makes perfect sense. I agree that this is a very complicated situation with no forseeable good solutions, but trying the same things that have not , and , sad to say, will not work is, umm, oh yeah, stupid. See? It all makes sense. To ask, on a blog, for exact, definitive, solutions to this is like asking which exact vein a brain surgeon should bypass to correct a brain bleed. I can’t give you the perfect answer, but I can suggest that trimming the patient’s toe nails is the, umm, stupid option. Again, it all makes sense.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 1049 hrs
“The man has never served his country, doesn’t understand the military and has no idea how to handle these strongmen. Combine that with the inexperienced and…kooks he has surrounded himself with and you have disaster brewing.”
Why do some insist on changing the subject to Bush. Get over it already.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 1450 hrs
Hey, Joe, if you really want to compare Bush’s qualifications with O’s, you are opening a can of worms you can’t possibly defend without resorting to the only method you lefties always revert to- lying your asses off, hoping no one calls you on your idiocy. The next executive decision O makes will be his first. What a sad, sad joke.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 1509 hrs
Tom,
I know this is off subject, but hey, it really hasn’t stayed on topic since I asked Owens opinion about what he’d do about the situation in Iran. But anyway, seeing as you brought it up, what are the lefties big lies they say about Bush to dispel his qualifications? Here is your chance to call them on their idiocy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 1629 hrs
“The man has never served his country,” Now you may denigrate GWB’s reservist duty, but prove he did not serve. Caveat: you cannot quote Dan Rather, or other liberal liars, but I repeat myself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2009 at 1050 hrs
You’re absolutely correct! GWB did serve his country, in the State National Guard to keep from having to serve active duty and go to Viet Nam. Which I would remind anyone that there were a lot of people who did the same during that time to avoid the draft. Granted questions were raised about his service attendance between 1972 and 1973, but you’re correct that he did serve in the State National Guard at least most of the time he was in. So the big lie that he never served his country is dispelled once and for all. And if any liberal liar tries to say differently, well, they’re dead wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2009 at 1221 hrs
Fail.
The better question, since the mighty O doesn’t seem capable, what is he going to do when Israel bombs out Iran’s nuke factories?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2009 at 1510 hrs
I still don’t see anybody listing the qualifications of O. And “Community Agitator” does not count as service to the country. And FBP, a hell of a lot of my friends that enlisted in the National Guard were deployed to ‘Nam.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2009 at 1626 hrs
“a hell of a lot of my friends that enlisted in the National Guard were deployed to ‘Nam”
My hat’s off to them. Were they part of the 126th Supply and Service Company from Illinois that served 12 months in Vietnam? Though some Guard troops did go, I know a lot of people went into the National Guard to get out of having to go to Nam. More escaped having to go to Nam than went. Usually it was those who no longer could get a college deferment. I know Bush’s dad pulled strings to get his son in the Guard ahead of others that were on a waiting list. Junior admitted this himself.
If you think I’m going to list any qualifications that Obama had to be President, I’m not. In my opinion Obama was under qualified to be president. That’s why I didn’t vote for him and voted for Bob Barr. I also thought Bush was under qualified to be president and I didn’t vote for him either. The first time he, Bush, ran was strictly because he wasn’t qualified and the second time was because he wasn’t qualified and was lying to the American public about Iraq and getting American citizens killed because of those lies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2009 at 1705 hrs
#18
“what is he going to do when Israel bombs out Iran’s nuke factories?”Hopefully nothing as it is none of our business. If Israel as concrete facts that Iran is going to attack them, then Israel can do as they darn well please. We’re not world police. Iran doesn’t present an imminent danger to the United States.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2009 at 1721 hrs
Glad that works for you - doing nothing seems to be O’s strong suit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2009 at 1817 hrs
What would you do, Bill, if you were the President and Israel started bombing Iran’s nuke factories?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2009 at 1824 hrs
Bill?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1303 hrs
Beuller?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1713 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 110
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 04:21 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).