By pushing Russia to consider the option of greater sanctions on Iran in her meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be endorsing a policy that will end up biting her in the back of her pantsuit. Apart from the fact that Moscow is unlikely to support such a policy given its strong trade relations with Tehran, there's also the issue of effectiveness. If the past 30 years have taught us anything in Iran, it is that sanctions are not an effective way to change the so-called Islamic Republic of Iran's behavior, nuclear or otherwise.
The idea that Iran poses a genuine nuclear threat to the international community is highly misguided at best. For one, even if Iran had nuclear weapons, which no one has confirmed, it would have no more than a handful. According to the Federation of Atomic Scientists, Israel has roughly 80 nuclear weapons and the United States, its chief ally, has over 9,000. The massive retaliation that any attack on Israel would undoubtedly produce would surely obliterate Iran -- dare I say, wipe it off the map. As a result, much like the recent mass trials of opposition leaders, journalists and protesters, any nuclear weapons that Iran might have are purely for show.
As the world recently witnessed at the UN General Assembly, contested President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks a good game. But for all his theatrics, Ahmadinejad has about as much independent power as a skilled stagehand. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei runs the show in Iran. He controls the armed forces and were anyone to push the button, it would be Khamenei, not Ahmadinejad. And while Khamenei is happy to taunt Western powers with claims of nuclear capabilities, he's not about to send a formal invitation to their military forces by bombing Israel.
Iran is not agreeing to further meetings with world leaders and the International Atomic Energy Agency solely to make friends or compromises. It is doing so on a massive PR campaign. By convincing the world that the greatest threat Iran poses is a nuclear one, the Iranian regime succeeds in promoting the false notion that its own greatest threat is not domestic turmoil, but rather foreign retaliation in response to its alleged nuclear weapons program. Still, no matter how hard the regime tries to convince the world otherwise, it's clear that Iran's strongest adversary today remains within its own borders, in the form of an increasingly frustrated, determined and defiant Iranian opposition movement.
Foreign sanctions or military attacks would thus prove counterproductive in that they would only strengthen the regime by punishing the Iranian people for the actions of their illegitimate rulers. And the Iranian people represent by far the greatest hope the world has in replacing the allegedly Islamic Republic of Iran with a truly democratic one.
Iran has been under sanctions for the past 30 years, and its behavior has not changed as a result. What has changed, however, is the social and economic condition of the Iranian people. Inflation and unemployment rates are embarrassingly high, and by all accounts, the regime could care less.
The current Iranian regime has far more to fear from its own people than it does from any foreign powers. More than any outsiders, Iranians know exactly where their government's soft spots lie, and they are fearlessly and relentlessly aiming directly at them.
The opposition's chants of "Allah-u Akbar" and particularly its ability to create its own symbolic martyrs, such as Neda Agha-Soltan and Sohrab Arabi, are proof of this fact. By appealing to Islam and the strong Shi'a emphasis on martyrdom to point out how painfully un-Islamic the allegedly "Islamic" Republic of Iran has become, the Iranian people are striking precisely where the regime is most vulnerable. Green is not only the color of the pro-democracy movement. It is also the color of Islam, and yet another example of how the "Greens" are successfully using Islam to fight a regime that falsely claims to be promoting it.
Thus, the Iranian opposition is shaking the very foundation of the current regime by pointing out its failure to defend generally agreed-upon Islamic values such as justice, equality, courtesy, compassion and non-compulsion in religion. Similarly, the opposition is also drawing attention to the government's violation of it's own Constitution, not just international law, in its brutal post-election crackdown on protesters, journalists and opposition leaders.
By attacking their government's claims to Islam and republicanism, the opposition is destabilizing this regime from within to make way for a better, legitimate government in the future. If an attack were to come from the outside, however, it could destroy both the government and the people of Iran, like a deadly round of chemotherapy that kills both the cancer and the patient in the process.
Sanctions and military attacks will not weaken the regime. Rather, they will only weaken the regime's greatest enemy to date: the millions of angry young Iranians who constitute over 70 percent of the current population and who are sick of being told what they can and can't say, do, print or wear. The Iranian people will paralyze this regime faster and more effectively than any foreign military or economic retribution ever could.
If the most famous of this year's Nobel Prize winners truly wants to see a safer, more peaceful and less militarized world, he would be wise to stop harping on Iran's possible nuclear armament and focus more on American disarmament. In this respect, Secretary Clinton could achieve far greater gains for the prospect of peace on earth by discussing the disarmament of the two greatest nuclear powers and threats on our planet while they're both in the same room. With a combined 25,000 nuclear weapons to their names, it would do the U.S. and Russia some good to commit to a little domestic clean-up of their own before pointing fingers and waging threats abroad.
Follow Melody Moezzi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MelodyMoezzi
The film is remarkable not only for its writing and performances, but for its realistic portrayal of the sad state of justice in so many parts of Iran, and the even sadder state of women there. The film is based on the book, which is a true story.
It's getting a theatrical re-release soon. I won't sugar-coat this for anyone. "The Stoning of Soraya M" is a very difficult film to watch. Many great films about truly gut-wrenching social issues are. It is, though, a film well worth seeking out.
........but ....what we around the world saw THE IRANIAN PEOPLE'S PEACFUL PROTESTER MARCH
FOR ...JUSTICES .....IN THEIR SHAMFUL- SHAME- ELECTIONS ! ....YOU MIGHT NOT SEE THIS...
BUT...IT ..COME DOWN ..TO TRUST...IN ISLAMIC LEADER !....REMEMBER THE IRANIAN ..HERO'S...
..... THE PEOPLE.. !
SO BLESSED BY ..... ! Opportunity of jobs ...businesss and promises of new -way- in GOVT.
TRUST ! ........[SHAME-ELECTION'S] ...is all the Iran people got ? ineffect govt. once again ! ...Why
The Iran people are allowed to suffer .... all for .....Ahmadinjad 's Epic Islamic-dream [male-pride]of a nuclear -bomb... !... ? what course of event....would he... sit up ...[if] allow to gain .. nuclear ..sites or
even the prize of ....world chaos ? .........what TRUST CAN ..WE ALL HAVE IN SIDE THE IRANIAN GOVT.
MIND-SET... ? ..not even you know ?... !
Military strikes against Iran would be catastrophic, it would unify Iranians against the external aggressor. That doesn't mean the people will embrace the regime but that they will stand behind the it to thwart off foreign aggression. A large number of the Iranian population's aggression is directed at the regime, an attack against Iran would redirect it outwards.
Those believing Iran's weaponized nuclear ambitions are irrational should ask themselves why the US has a nuclear arsenal to begin with. It's due to its capacity to act a strategic deterrent against a potential adversary. Iran has many potential adversaries regionally, it's surrounded by Western forces and allies, NATO, and Israel. Iran is not part of a security pact such as NATO; it does not have the luxury of having a nuclear umbrella extended to it. Iran is entirely on its own to fend for its national security. That's where nuclear weapons come in. They're a guarantor of national security, not of the regime however. The Soviets had a large nuclear stockpile; that did not prevent communism from collapsing.
The P5+1 ought to put everything it has into these negotiations with the Iranians. If that doesn't work, then economic sanctions are justifiable. Regardless, military action v. Iran ought to be prevented.
Good article? an "analysis"? Did I read the same blog? Well, siince Hoffpo censors often don't like what I say, your types of comments get published with no responses. Isn't this what is meant by Corporate-controlled media in U.S.? Betcha!
"66% approved of "the way President Ahmadinejad is handling his job as president"
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/527.php
According to a May 2009 Survey by Terror Free Tomorrow and New America Foundation Ahmadinejad was forcasted to best his nearest rival 2 to 1.
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%200609.pdf
According to Aug 2009 survey by University of Maryland's WorldPubli cOpinion.o rg:
"Most Iranians express acceptance of the outcome of the Presidential election. Eighty-one percent say they consider Ahmadinejad to be Iran's legitimate president, and 62 percent say they have a lot of confidence in the declared election results, while 21 percent say they have some confidence. Just 13 percent say they do not have much confidence or no confidence in the results. In general, eight in 10 (81%) say they are satisfied with the process by which authorities are elected, but only half that number (40%) say they are very satisfied."
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/639.php?nid=&id=&pnt=639&lb=
However, outside those circles, the government seems to enjoy popular support.
The polling organization in question carefully decide on the method of penetration, and carefully gauge if the respondents are being honest. E.g. they use telephones because of its deep penetration in all classes of Iranian society. They ask open-ended questions such as "what do you think of the rule of the jurist?". When a plurality of the respondents say the supreme leader should be elected, not appointed, the pollster knows they have a reliable sample.
Of course, unless the pollster takes these basic precautions, the survey results would not be worth the paper they are written on, and that would have consequences for the pollster's reputation, future funding, etc. etc.
It is true that I push against demonizing Iran. But, I hope a fair reading of my posts should convince you that I am not lionizing its government. Personally I spend my time thinking of policy formulations that has resonance with Iran's large underclass. I find it unproductive to bash folks with different opinions to mine.
http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/iran-election-fraud-moaddel-on-ballen.html
However, scrutiny of the data posted at Terror Free Tomorrow (www.terrorfreetomorrow.org) fails to support Ballen and Doherty’s interpretations. Their findings, from a telephone survey conducted four weeks before the election, are based on the responses of only 57.8% of the 1,731 people who were successfully contacted by telephone from outside of Iran. Among these, 34% said they would vote for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 14% for Mir Hussein Mousavi, 2% for Mehdi Karoubi, 1% for Mohsen Rezaie, and 27% did not know. (These figures add up only to 78% in the Ballen report.) In other words, of 1,731 people contacted, well over half either refused to participate (42.2%) or did not indicate a preferred candidate (15.6%) While we cannot guess at the political preferences of this nonresponding/ noncommitting group, we do know from these data that just 19.7% of all those contacted indicated they planned to vote for Ahmadinejad. This polling figure is very low for an incumbent – particularly for a self-described populist candidate – and cannot be responsibly interpreted as representing a clear harbinger of election victory.
Without a hostile outside world--what is their purpose really?
Obama should fast-track normalizing relations, and see what shakes loose.
I suspect whatever is going to shake loose in Iran is going to have absolutely nothing to do with what the Western world commits or omits to do. Frustrating, I know. Now you see the prized fish, but no line left to cast.
MJ Roenburg suggests the Nobel peace prize has put a stop to dreams of conquest. Mrs Moezzi seems to think powers-that-be would be influenced by the consequences of war/sanctions for the "Reformists".
IMHO war with Iran would be suicidal. Sanctions will just make yet another swath of Iranian domestic industry self-sufficient. That is why nobody is trying very hard to do either, period.
With or Without the US as a foe, Iran's political trajectory is largely determined within Irans borders.
In addition; overtures towards respectful dialogue, reducing our own nuclear weapon stockpiles, prosecuting torture and being firmer with Israel would also be great steps to deflate and undermine the reactionary grip of Khamenei and his marionettes.