Having managed to finally push through sanctions against the Iranian government at the UN Security Council, the Obama Administration is crowing that the move is a major “win” for their policy.
“We are gratified by the positive response that our year of engagement has produced,” insisted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has repeatedly said that the feigned US calls for diplomacy have been about convincing the world that Iran wasn’t interested in talking.
Ironically the Obama Administration’s “year of engagement” netted a third party enrichment deal, which the administration demanded Iran sign and pushed sanctions over. When Iran did sign it, the administration condemned that as well and insisted that the sanctions go forward.
Besides underscoring to the international community, notably Brazil and Turkey, that the administration was negotiating in bad faith, the sanctions “win” looks like it will accomplish very little, except for convincing Iran that there is no productive use in persuing diplomacy with President Obama in the future.
They will also target Iran’s energy sector, though the sanctions themselves make only vague references to exactly how, and it seems to be up to the Obama Administration to decide how they want to interpret it.
If anything, it underscores the administration’s ability to, after six months, finally harangue most of the international community into supporting a pointless sanctions resolution on the basis of an ever-changing but always frivilous littany of allegations against Iran.
"According to the U.S. National Foreign Trade Council, in the medium-term, lifting US sanctions and liberalizing Iran’s economic regime would increase Iran's total trade annually by as much as $61 billion (at the 2005 world oil price of $50/bbl), adding 32 percent to Iran’s GDP. In the oil-and-gas sector, output and exports would expand by 25-to-50 percent (adding 3 percent to world crude oil production).
Iran could reduce the world price of crude petroleum by 10 percent, saving the United States annually between $38 billion (at the 2005 world oil price of $50/bbl) and $76 billion (at the proximate 2008 world oil price of $100/bbl). Opening Iran’s market place to foreign investment could also be a boon to competitive US multinational firms operating in a variety of manufacturing and service sectors.
In 2009, there was discussion in the U.S. of implementing 'crippling sanctions' against Iran, such as the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009, "if diplomatic overture did not show signs of success by the autumn". Professor Hamid Dabashi, of Columbia University, said in August 2009 that this was likely to bring 'catastrophic humanitarian consequences', while enriching and strengthening the 'security and military apparatus' of 'he Pasdaran and the Basij,'and having absolutely no support from "any major or even minor opposition leader" in Iran.[19] According to Bloomberg News, Boeing and Exxon have said that new Iran sanctions would cost $25 billion in U.S. exports.
It has also been argued the sanctions have had the counter effect of protecting Iran in some ways,
for example the 2007 imposition of US sanctions against Iranian financial institutions to a high degree made Iran immune to the then emerging global recession."
wikipedia s.v."US Sanctions Against Iran"
Aha, the plot thickens: "the 2007 imposition of US sanctions against Iranian financial institutions to a high degree made Iran immune to the then emerging global recession…."
Translation: Iran did not get reams of US bad paper, which was responsible also for the European collapse.
Turkey and Brazil to ask for UN sanctions next?
Today's economic quiz: what currency will mainland China pay newly sanctioned Iran in for their oil?
One of these days they may not take any USD at all.
How about gold?
So, as with Iraq, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed [by the U.S.] around the policy" of regime change. The eedjits in charge are clueless. Even the Iranian opponents of Ahmadinejad declare that Iran has an inalienable right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. What happenss afterwards? The regime is changed and the resulting instability and violence causes an almost complete closure of Iran oil exports. $200 per barrel anyone?
Given the collapse of USD, $200 is wildly optimistic. $400-500 seems entirely possible if there is an attack o Iran, which would also mean, almost surely, a vast supply of irradiated oil. But who knows BP may be fine with all that.
As one said long ago, the US "economy"–if you can call it that–has no chance of recovery without the nationalization of domestic oil.
The mechanics are quite simple even if they seem to elude the Right Wing (Democrats) and Even More Right Wing (Republicans).
Moreover, nationalization in and of itself is necessary but not sufficient–it only a step that has taken for other steps to have a chance of working.
But it may already be too late.
Enjoy your Cajun Shrimp Petroleum.
Yeah…,sure. We'll wait and see just what kind of "Victory" we get for doing Israel's bidding once again.
A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Ledeen is incompetent by the way, and Machiavelli's "The Prince" is a satire in the mode that only Florentines easily grasp.
Who could have guessed that the end result of the Israeli attack on the aid ship in international waters and subsequent massacre of the aid workers aboard would result in…business as usual! After spending the weekend refusing to criticize Israel's massacre, American war pigs are back to the same old, same old, kissing Israeli shorts and grovelling like whores in front of the UN for their Israeli masters. Sad.
"Iran plans to build seven new oil and gas refineries in a bid to diminish its vulnerability to sanctions from foreign refineries.
According to the official Iranian news agency IRNA, the new oil and gas refineries will allow Iran both to meet domestic demand and become a gas exporter."
[Mehr Agency June9, 2010]
Is Israel still importing oil from Iran, by the way?
Israel, Britain, and the US long had an option to negotiate with Hussein's Iraq, and chose to destroy the country instead.
In fact, at any time in eight years Clinton might have resolved the Iraq issue to the advantage of the US.
Instead he let simmer until the second Bush lied their way into invading and occupying.
Britain, which had its eyes Basra, was also an important factor, as Thatcher was in the First Gulf War.
Enjoy your Cajun Shrimp Petroleum.
With nuclear power and increased refinery capacity thanks to sanctions, Iran continues its path toward economic self-sufficiency.
The US, on the other hand, seems hellbent on complete and utter collapse..
Good job, Jason, tying this back around to what Clinton said at the very beginning of the faux 'engagement' process.
Is she really understands what she is doing or just there to entertain Adolph Prince and his solders of mercenaries …, yet one needs to know that she is very much engaged in south america doing what is best for america to come out of her engagement as yet another loser. "Iran sanction a victory for Obama"….? please Hillary help Obama deal with BP and other problem as home…, like all that unemployment…, millions of homeless people.., pentagon disappearance money .., federal reserve and their dishonesty…, Iraq disasters.., Afghanistan war and etc and etc and etc….
Re….. "Iran Sanctions Vote a Victory for Obama"
awright….. I see….. I didn't realise there was a score to settle….
Assassins do not negotiate as far as I know.
A hollow "victory" indeed.
Sure they do–it's called a Mexican standoff.
Haven't you seen A Fistful Of Dollars?
Is this the sort of "victory" to be touted?
This bargin basement deal composed of bribes and arm twisting is the golden laurel leafed wreath to complete Obama's Caesar Roman Costume.
He had already turned his thumb down on our civil rights and his campaign promises and now this!
UN Security council has no legitimacy,it is controled by four European colonial powers,and it's aim is to perpatuate the colonialism in a new palatable way.Obama should take his nobel prize and shove it.,and Hilery the whore,deserve to be replaced by Monica.
The U.S. has turned the UN into a laughingstock. Why isn't anybody walking out? Why aren't any countries renouncing the UN Charter?