Support NeoGAF

[el retorno]

please, it's from the Brookings Institute, which is staffed by ex-US government officials.

Link? And that's why I didn't out right dismiss it I said who was it from.

 

[theignoramus]

I was just pointing out that both countries have interfered with other countries and have "Imperialist" tendencies. And that Iran isn't just minding its own business and the big old US is bullying it.

And yes hezbollah and hamas are worse than most US allies. Save for countries like Saudi Arabia and their human rights abuses.

But they are not worse than US allies in Afghanistan, Pakistan and, as you correctly state, Saudi Arabia.

 

[theignoramus]

Link? And that's why I didn't out right dismiss it I said who was it from.

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.aspx

 

[el retorno]

But they are not worse than US allies in Afghanistan, Pakistan and, as you correctly state, Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan or Afganistan are not allies is the way is not an ally in the way hezbollah and hamas are to Iran.

And more on that poll
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=21617&pageid=&pagename=

seems there are differing findings some which disagree with the Arabs want Iran to get a nuke theory. Hey some even support the evil sanctions.

I wish I Love if there was a poll done after the Arab Spring since Iran's negatives have been going up

 

[theignoramus]

Pakistan or Afganistan are not allies is the way is not an ally in the way hezbollah and hamas are to Iran.

And more on that poll
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=21617&pageid=&pagename=

seems there are differing findings some which disagree with the Arabs want Iran to get a nuke theory. Hey some even support the evil sanctions.

I wish I Love if there was a poll done after the Arab Spring since Iran's negatives have been going up

the Washington Institute for Near East policy is an AIPAC spin off. I refuse to read anything from that organization.

 

[el retorno]

the Washington Institute for Near East policy is an AIPAC spin off. I refuse to read anything from that organization.

What about the fact that it cites four polls? Just because a guy that you disagree with compiles it you can't discuss what's in it. How convenient.

 

[milkyjay20]

the OT is like one of those official threads over on the gaming side, except depressing as shit

 

[theignoramus]

Pakistan or Afganistan are not allies is the way is not an ally in the way hezbollah and hamas are to Iran.

And more on that poll
http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=21617&pageid=&pagename=

seems there are differing findings some which disagree with the Arabs want Iran to get a nuke theory. Hey some even support the evil sanctions.

I wish I Love if there was a poll done after the Arab Spring since Iran's negatives have been going up

Well neither is Hamas. You havnt been following the latest developments.
Iran has slashed money and weapons shipment to Gaza to punish Hamas for not standing by Bashar Al Assad's crackdown. I never bought the Israeli claims that Hamas, a Sunni, Muslim Brotherhood outfit was an Iranian appendage, it was always a marriage of convenience, a convergence of anti-Israel interests. That marriage is no longer convenient.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/iran-threatening-to-cut-hamas-funds-arms-supply-if-it-flees-syria-1.399612

this Brookings Poll on arab public opinion was conducted in October of this year.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2011/1121_arab_public_opinion_telhami/1121_arab_public_opinion.pdf

Iran suffered mixed results. More people in 2011 identify Iran as one of the two biggest threats they face than ever before (18%), and, in contrast with 2010, a plurality (35%) of those polled now believe that if Iran acquires weapons of mass destruction it would be negative for the Middle East. On the other hand, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, remains relatively popular, and most (64%) Arabs still feel that Iran has the right to its nuclear program and should not be pressured by the international community to halt it.

Although France remains relatively popular, it has suffered a major setback in Arab public opinion in comparison with the past several years. While 23% said they preferred France if there were only one superpower in 2009, this has dropped to only 10% This was also matched by a decline in the number of people who want to live in France (from 36% in 2009 to 28% in 2011). This appears to be related to the fact that Arabs are divided on the issue of the international intervention in Libya: A plurality of Arabs in the five countries polled (46%) say that, in retrospect, the international intervention was a mistake, although there is variation from country to country.

Overall, Arabs polled strongly take the sides of the rebels against the government in Yemen (89%), Syria (86%), and Bahrain (64%). But there are regional differences: Those polled in the UAE mostly favor the government of Bahrain. The Lebanese are divided on Syria, the Jordanians are divided on Bahrain, and the Egyptians' support for the rebels in Bahrain is weaker than their support for the rebels in Yemen and Syria.

A majority of those polled (55%) are more optimistic about the future of the Arab world in light of the Arab Spring, 16% are pessimistic and 23% feel no change. A majority feel that the Arab Spring is mostly about "ordinary people seeking dignity, freedom and a better life," while 19% believe it is about foreign powers trying to stir trouble in the region and 16% feel it is about opposition parties or sects seeking to control governments.
The United States

While a majority of Arabs polled continue to express unfavorable views of the United States (59%) the number of those who have favorable views of the US has increased from 10% in 2010 to 26% in 2011. This improvement could be related to the perception of the American handling of the Arab Spring, as 24% of those polled identified the US as one of the two countries they believe played the most constructive role in the Arab Spring.

A majority of Arabs polled (52%) remain discouraged by the Obama administration policy in the Middle East, though this is down from 65% in 2010 and up from only 15% in 2009. A plurality of those polled (43%) have negative views of President Obama while 34% have positive views. This constitutes an improvement from 2010 for Obama, but a decline from 2009.

When asked about the two steps by the United States that would improve their views of the US the most, 55% said an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and 42% said stopping aid to Israel.
A majority of Arabs polled, 67% continue to say that they're prepared for peace with Israel based on a two state solution along the 1967 borders. At the same time, a majority (53%) say that such a solution will never happen. Yet a majority (54%) also believes that if the two state solution is no longer on the table, this will lead to a state of intense conflict for years to come.

So, 79% of the Arabs polled regard Israel as the biggest threat to them, the United States comes in at 59% and Iran comes in at 18%. (more crucially, that poll devastates Israel's bullshit claims that Arabs want to drive them into the sea. It's clear that while Israel is widely reviled by the Arab street, it is now accepted as a fact on the ground.)

 

[nib95]

What about the fact that it cites four polls? Just because a guy that you disagree with compiles it you can't discuss what's in it. How convenient.

What four polls does it cite, and are their details about the source and institute for each?

 

[el retorno]

the Washington Institute for Near East policy is an AIPAC spin off. I refuse to read anything from that organization.

What about the fact that it cites four polls? Just because a guy that you disagree with compiles it you can't discuss what's in it. How convenient.

And that article was posted in FP so they feel comfortable running it. Your "don't agree with the guy I'm just going to ignore him" reminds me of a lot of the people you know critize for only reading "biased" news stories

Edit: Sorry bout the double post on my phone

 

[theignoramus]

European governments have agreed in principle to ban imports of Iranian oil, dealing a potentially heavy blow to Tehran that intensifies the bite of Western economic sanctions just months before an Iranian election.

The prospective embargo, announced by European Union diplomats on Wednesday, along with tough US financial measures signed into law by President Barack Obama on New Year's Eve, form a concerted Western campaign to impose sanctions over Iran's nuclear programme.

Iran says its nuclear programme is strictly peaceful, but Western countries say a November United Nations report shows it has sought to build an atomic bomb. Talks between Tehran and major powers broke down a year ago.

Diplomats said EU envoys had held talks on Iran in the last days of December, and that any objections to an oil embargo had been dropped, notably from crisis-hit Greece which gets one-third of its oil from Iran, relying on Tehran's lenient financing.

EU countries buy about 450,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Iran's 2.6 billion bpd in exports, making the bloc collectively the
second largest market for Iranian crude after China.

Downplaying sanctions

The news caused a spike rise in oil prices, with Brent crude peaking at nearly $114 a barrel in intraday trading, up nearly $2 from Tuesday's close.

Iran has warned that any steps to cut its oil exports could cause havoc in international oil markets at a time of global
economic pain. In recent weeks, it has also resorted to increasingly aggressive military sabre-rattling.

Tehran threatened last month to shut the Strait of Hormuz, outlet to the Gulf through which 40 per cent of traded oil flows, and on Tuesday threatened to take unspecified action if a US aircraft carrier sails through the strait.

Western countries have imposed various sanctions on Iran for years with little impact but the latest measures are
qualitatively different, directly targeting Iran's oil industry, which forms 60 per cent of its economy.

The embargo will force Iran to find other buyers for oil, but Tehran insisted it would have no trouble: "We could very easily replace these customers," said SM Qamsari, international director of the National Iranian Oil Company.

But the new US sanctions have already made it difficult for Iran to keep the customers it has, and could force it to
offer steep discounts to countries willing to risk doing business with it, hurting its revenues.
Biggest trading partner China, driving a hard bargain, has cut its order of Iranian oil by more than half this month.

Most traders expect Iran will still find buyers for its crude, mostly in Asia, but it is going to have to offer substantial discounts, cutting back the revenue that the state relies on to subsidise basic goods for its citizens.

Tougher sanctions appear to be having an impact already on Iran's streets, where prices for foodstuffs are soaring.

The rial currency has lost 40 per cent of its value against the dollar over the past month.

Currency exchanges have shut in Tehran and Iranians have queued to withdraw their savings from banks and buy dollars.

That economic hardship is being felt by the public two months before a parliamentary election, Iran's first since a
disputed 2009 presidential vote that led to massive street demonstrations, put down violently by Iran's rulers.

Supply shock

Iran's leaders are anxious to prevent any popular unrest, especially after the Arab Spring revolts last year showed the
vulnerability of Middle Eastern governments to street protest.

The EU diplomats said member countries had not yet agreed on how soon the embargo should take effect and were still debating other possible sanctions.

The new US financial sanctions, if imposed fully, would make it all but impossible for many refineries to pay for
Iranian crude. The law grants Obama the power to issue temporary waivers to prevent shocks in energy markets.

A Turkish energy official said Ankara, which buys about 30 per cent of its oil from Iran, was seeking a waiver from
Washington for its biggest refiner, Tupras.

Washington says it is discussing with its allies how to implement the measures without causing an oil supply shock

serious business. this standoff will now end in one of two ways. war or regime change. sabotaging Irans economy makes the latter option much less likely.

 

[Pollux]

nevermind.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

It actually makes regime change a more viable option. When economy gets destroyed people stop caring about nationalism (although a nationalist elite gets progressively more agressive).

 

[maharg]

It actually makes regime change a more viable option. When economy gets destroyed people stop caring about nationalism (although a nationalist elite gets progressively more agressive).

Even if it did, that doesn't mean the new regime is likely to be any more friendly, though.

 

[theignoramus]

It actually makes regime change a more viable option. When economy gets destroyed people stop caring about nationalism (although a nationalist elite gets progressively more agressive).

I dunno about nationalism, but a siege makes dissidents, along with everyone else, more reliant on the regime for basic goods and services and allows the regime to consolidate its power, even as the economy falters. As was the case in Iraq.

 

[goomba]

Genocide by sanctions

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Genocide by sanctions

Man your Anti-Amerrican views are hilariously over the top. lol

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

It actually makes regime change a more viable option. When economy gets destroyed people stop caring about nationalism (although a nationalist elite gets progressively more agressive).

absolutely not, abso-lute-ly not. Embargos make the nationalism even stronger, and the dedication the regime far stronger as the population is now far more dependant on the state for everything, and the rest of the world is now far, far, far more easier to demonise.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

absolutely not, abso-lute-ly not. Embargos make the nationalism even stronger, and the dedication the regime far stronger as the rest of the world is now far, far, far more easier to demonise.

I suspect you base that more on your internal political bias than anything else.

 

[maharg]

I suspect you base that more on your internal political bias than anything else.

Er... Out of curiosity, what country has successfully enacted (or even, for that matter, visibly attempted) regime change because of international embargo?

There's some pretty obvious counterexamples (Iraq, North Korea).

Off the top of my head, the most notable example might be South Africa, though I think there was already widespread and violent opposition before embargos started happening, iirc.

 

[goomba]

Man your Anti-Amerrican views are hilariously over the top. lol

I love America and American culture and people. What disgusts me is US foreign policy and double standards when it comes to international law. Does that make me "anti american"?

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Er... Out of curiosity, what country has successfully enacted (or even, for that matter, visibly attempted) regime change because of international embargo?

There's some pretty obvious counterexamples (Iraq, North Korea).

Off the top of my head, the most notable example might be South Africa, though I think there was already widespread and violent opposition before embargos started happening, iirc.

Serbia. From my personal experience, economic hardship forces people to vote anti-regime despite everything. Regime change over here was done mainly due to economic destruction. Losing a war helped, but poor economy was #1 reason.

 

[el retorno]

Genocide by sanctions

While those deaths were horrible the blame goes to Saddam, who wouldn´t comply. Same with Iran. If anybody is hurting over there its their own government´s fault.

 

[scorcho]

Er... Out of curiosity, what country has successfully enacted (or even, for that matter, visibly attempted) regime change because of international embargo?

There's some pretty obvious counterexamples (Iraq, North Korea).

Off the top of my head, the most notable example might be South Africa, though I think there was already widespread and violent opposition before embargos started happening, iirc.

not to mention the difference between traditional sanctions and targeted sanctions. political science literature points to traditional, sweeping sanctions working on democratic institutions that are susceptible to widespread public outcry. for dictatorial and other non-democratic regimes, targeted sanctions are a better tool as they attempt to isolate only the regime.

 

[AgentOtaku]

Fantastic OP.

Was honestly pretty in the dark about this stuff.

 

[Wazzim]

While those deaths were horrible the blame goes to Saddam, who wouldn´t comply. Same with Iran. If anybody is hurting over there its their own government´s fault.

I just can't conclude if this are things believed by egoistic assholes or people with a complete lack of intelligence of any sort.

Iran is LEGALLY allowed to have nuclear power in their country, the 'fuel' gets supplied and controlled by a foreign country and the Nuclear agency of the UN has got permission from the Iranian government to inspect everything.

I don't like the Iranian regime just as much as any other oppressive regime in the world but it's bullshit man. Complete bullshit.

 

[el retorno]

I just can't conclude if this are things believed by egoistic assholes or people with a complete lack of intelligence of any sort.

Iran is LEGALLY allowed to have nuclear power in their country, the 'fuel' gets supplied and controlled by a foreign country and the Nuclear agency of the UN has got permission from the Iranian government to inspect everything.

I don't like the Iranian regime just as much as any other oppressive regime in the world but it's bullshit man. Complete bullshit.

I agree Iran as the right to nuclear power. The US does too. It doesn´t have the right to hide stuff from inpectors, conduct tests and computer similations about nuclear weapons, threaten to reduce cooperation with the IAEA and play games with the IAEA. Iran could open up its program completly and be done with this.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Er... Out of curiosity, what country has successfully enacted (or even, for that matter, visibly attempted) regime change because of international embargo?

There's some pretty obvious counterexamples (Iraq, North Korea).

Off the top of my head, the most notable example might be South Africa, though I think there was already widespread and violent opposition before embargos started happening, iirc.

Its a a part of the machine, not the machine itself. Libya was not just sanctions, but they did play a part, one notable example was Libyan currency being seized and Mummar having problems having enough cash on hand to pay people.

 

[Pathetic Basement Virgin]

I just can't conclude if this are things believed by egoistic assholes or people with a complete lack of intelligence of any sort.

Iran is LEGALLY allowed to have nuclear power in their country, the 'fuel' gets supplied and controlled by a foreign country and the Nuclear agency of the UN has got permission from the Iranian government to inspect everything.

I don't like the Iranian regime just as much as any other oppressive regime in the world but it's bullshit man. Complete bullshit.

They won't hear you though.
Iran is wrong by default to most people.

 

[maharg]

Its a a part of the machine, not the machine itself. Libya was not just sanctions, but they did play a part, one notable example was Libyan currency being seized and Mummar having problems having enough cash on hand to pay people.

So what's the other part of the machine in Iran?

Also, in this case, the rhetoric on the US' part sounds disturbingly like the rhetoric used in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq. It's a little disturbing.

 

[el retorno]

They won't hear you though.
Iran is wrong by default to most people.

Won´t hear what?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

They won't hear you though.
Iran is wrong by default to most people.

Its a shame what happened to Iran, after the overthrow of the Shah, it didn't have to go Fundie crazy, sort of like Russia between the fall of Czar and the Communists consolidating power.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Sanctions rarely work. They strike at the ordinary person who in turn will hate the imposing countries rather than their head of state. Here's an interesting article about just that using an example of Iraq:

They exacerbated an already difficult situation caused by the imposition of sanctions.

Professor Joy Gordon, of the Global Justice Programme at Yale University, has just written a new study on the impact of these sanctions.

The combination of the bombing strikes and the sanctions were devastating, she says.

"Iraq had the wealth to rebuild," she says, "but the devastation of the infrastructure and then the almost total cut-off of exports and imports, meant that Iraq was - in the words of a UN envoy - reduced to a pre-industrial state and then was kept, more or less, close to that condition for over a decade after."

The debates on how many perished, especially children, continue to this day.

She argues in her book that the best estimate of excess child mortality - the number of children under five who died during the sanctions who would not have perished had pre-war and pre-sanctions conditions continued - is between 670,000 and 880,000.

Adam Roberts says some have called this the "Battle of Britain" effect; a reference to the days in 1940 when Britain stood alone against everything the German Luftwaffe could throw at it.

"The problem is how to prevent these sanctions from leading to very strong nationalist resentment in Iran itself. When Iran was attacked by Iraq in 1980, the international community did not come to its aid. It did not sanction the attacker, Iraq - and that's remembered in Iran."

"In the Iranian regime's official pronouncements there is a sense that only we can look after ourselves," he says.

"And in these circumstances it's a very difficult task to gauge the sanctions correctly so that they don't exacerbate the problem that they are designed to address."

All in all then, sanctions appear a problematic tool at best.

Source

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

So what's the other part of the machine in Iran?

Also, in this case, the rhetoric on the US' part sounds disturbingly like the rhetoric used in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq. It's a little disturbing.

Covert operations, sabatoge (stunext and crappy parts), tanking the value of their oil(which we've down with Saudi help).

I could care less what the rhetoric sounds like. Iran remembers the Tanker Wars, unless they are rock bottom stupid, they will do nothing. If they are that stupid, I have full faith in the US Navy and US Air Force's ability to neutralize any threat from Iran to the Straits of Hormuz.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Manos, your post could use an edit pass, lol.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Covert operations, sabatoge (stunext and crappy parts), tanking the value of their oil(which we've down with Saudi help).

I could care less what the rhetoric sounds like, Iran remembers the Tanker Wars, unless rock bottom stupid, they will so nothing. If they are that stupid, I have full faith in the US Navy and US Air Forces ability to neutralize any threat.

That's the problem. If Iran does nothing, the sanctions continue, crippling its economy and hurting its people. You have a war mongering mindset if all you can think of is attack and retaliation. There's a lot at stake when you decide to sanction a country.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Manos, your post could use an edit pass, lol.

Bah damn autocorrect and text replacement!

Will do.

 

[maharg]

America Fuck Yeah! Amirite?

 

[Vagabundo]

A lot of this is starting to smell like the bullshit released before the Iraq invasion. All bullshit.

A pretext for war. Some americans just have a hardon for war and guns.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

A lot of this is starting to smell like the bullshit released before the Iraq invasion. All bullshit.

A pretext for war. Some americans just have a hardon for war and guns.

Have you ever read about the Tanker Wars? It is quite different than the Invasion of Iraq.

 

[Wazzim]

I agree Iran as the right to nuclear power. The US does too. It doesn´t have the right to hide stuff from inpectors, conduct tests and computer similations about nuclear weapons, threaten to reduce cooperation with the IAEA and play games with the IAEA. Iran could open up its program completly and be done with this.

This nagging about their wish for nuclear energy began before they threatened the IAEA to reduce cooperation, Iran was rejected the right of nuclear energy in the very beginning.
Only politicians could think of the idiotic plan that sanctions would help against nuclear weapons (which aren't there yet or in full production, only 'simulations' found after the sanctions).
It's just so dumb how many people jump on this only 9 years after the infamous Iraq Slides of our beloved Colin Powell.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

This nagging about their wish for nuclear energy began before they threatened the IAEA to reduce cooperation, Iran was rejected the right of nuclear energy in the very beginning.
Only politicians could think of the idiotic plan that sanctions would help against nuclear weapons (which aren't there yet or in full production, only 'simulations' found after the sanctions).
It's just so dumb how many people jump on this only 9 years after the infamous Iraq Slides of our beloved Colin Powell.

The invasion of Iraq was not soley based on WMDs. I also find it funny how people forget Saddam planned to restart whenever the sanctions were lifted. He and others said as much himself.

 

[maharg]

The invasion of Iraq was not soley based on WMDs.

Uh.. such as?

 

[Wazzim]

The invasion of Iraq was not soley based on WMDs. I also find it funny how people forget Saddam planned to restart whenever the sanctions were lifted. He and others said as much himself.

Go, go outside and ask the first person you see why they think we started the Iraq war.

See what I mean?

Removing a despot and doing what we should have some in 1991. Hitches put it best saying we owed it to the Iraqi people after what happened in 1991.

...

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Uh.. such as?

Removing a despot and doing what we should have some in 1991. Hitches put it best saying we owed it to the Iraqi people after what happened in 1991.

 

[maharg]

Uh. Right. Ok, well I think we all knew the real reason was Bush Jr's daddy complex, but the justification given to the UN and to the 'coalition of the willing' was a ready and present threat of deployment of WMD.

 

[Vagabundo]

Have you ever read about the Tanker Wars? It is quite different than the Invasion of Iraq.

Somewhat. However the issue here is the smoke and mirrors used to sway public opinion to create a context for war. Very similar to the imaginations of GW Bush during the Iraq buildup.

The invasion of Iraq was not soley based on WMDs. I also find it funny how people forget Saddam planned to restart whenever the sanctions were lifted. He and others said as much himself.

No, there was also an imaginary link made to 9-11.

It was total bullshit. WMD were the primary reason told to the public. However we all know that Bush had his own reasons for wanting war and the NeoCons had theirs, but the public bought the WMD and the vague 9-11 links.

Let's not rewrite history here.

 

[Azih]

Yeah PNAC had more to do with the Iraq war than the plight of the Iraqis ever did.

 

[el retorno]

That's the problem. If Iran does nothing, the sanctions continue, crippling its economy and hurting its people. You have a war mongering mindset if all you can think of is attack and retaliation. There's a lot at stake when you decide to sanction a country.

What does the US do to prevent their program?
Is your answer going to be nothing. Of course there´s a lot at stake but the US and the west see that as preferable to a nuclear arms race in the middle east. Iran can stop the sanctions if it concides to the World´s offers. For example enriching the Uranium in another country.

This nagging about their wish for nuclear energy began before they threatened the IAEA to reduce cooperation, Iran was rejected the right of nuclear energy in the very beginning.
Only politicians could think of the idiotic plan that sanctions would help against nuclear weapons (which aren't there yet or in full production, only 'simulations' found after the sanctions).
It's just so dumb how many people jump on this only 9 years after the infamous Iraq Slides of our beloved Colin Powell.

Yes I think forcing someone to come to the table can help aganist nuclear weapons along with carrots. And no it wasn´t rejected nuclear power and it is still not. It is being looked at with suspision.

And yes this is just like the Iraq war with France and Germany talking about the danger Iran poses because they were so gun-ho about Iraq and thought there were WMD´s there.

 

[Azih]

Covert operations, sabatoge (stunext and crappy parts), tanking the value of their oil(which we've down with Saudi help).

And this is nonsense. These sorts of operations only weaken a regime that has low support from its people and a weak security appartus. Neither of these things is true in Iran. Plus you're advocating hostile operations against a nation that has not attacked anyone. Haven't we cured ourselves of 'pre-emptive' strikes by now?