Iran Deleted From the World's Banking Computers

dtjohnson writes "Iran is being deleted from the world banking system Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) computers as of Saturday at 1600 UTC. Once the SWIFT codes for Iranian banks are deleted, Iranian banks will no longer be able to transfer funds to and from other worldwide banks, turning Iranian international commerce into a barter operation. SWIFT is taking the action at the request of EU members to comply with international sanctions against Iran due to its program to develop nuclear weapons. The effect will be to drastically hinder Iran's ability to execute international business transactions."

Comments

The people will be the ones who suffer

[elrous0]

The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003. When the largest military power in the world labels you as one of three "Axis of Evil" members, then proceeds to invade one of the other two, it tends to make you a bit twitchy. And, both Iran and NK know that the only way to really protect yourself from U.S. invasion is with nuclear weapons.

Due mainly to Israeli and U.S. propaganda, a lot of people seem to think that Iran is building nukes to attack Israel. But the fact is that Iran has never shown itself to be a particularly hostile or irrational nation in any military sense. And even despite the anti-U.S. rhetoric that followed the revolution that overthrew the U.S. puppet shah and the U.S. helping Saddam Hussein during the Iraq/Iran war, Iranians have been surprisingly open to U.S. diplomacy in the past. They were even one of the first countries to offer the U.S. condolences after the 9-11 attacks, and in the pre-Bush years maintained a stable, if sometimes tense, relationship with the U.S. They're a country that seems to want to be liked on the world stage. But they're also a country that wants to send a message to the U.S. that they're not going to stand by and be invaded on some U.S. oil grab.

So we cut off their banks and hit them with sanctions. Fine. A lot of Iranian people will suffer. And maybe this will lead them to negotiate, maybe not.

But you know what I bet would ABSOLUTELY lead them to negotiate and drop their nuke program?

1) Offer a few public goodwill gestures to make it clear that the U.S. is *not* going to invade them or attack them
2) Tell Mossad to stop assassinating their scientists, or face sanctions of their own.
3) Reign in Israel and make it clear to them that attacking Iran will NOT be tolerated, and will cost them the friendship of the U.S.
4) Normalizing relations with Iran.

You do those four things, and you won't need to cut off their banks to get them to the table. They'll be *running* to get to the table.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[elrous0]

Oh sorry, what I meant to say was F1RST POST!!!!!!!

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Troyusrex]

I guess you don't remember Jimmy Carter negotiating a treaty with North Korea back in 1994 almost exactly along the lines you state. Or them cheating on it by continuing to develop nuclear weapons and being called on it even before Bush was elected and well before the Axis of Evil speech.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

If the people allow their government to do evil things, they deserve to suffer.

You do realise that's exactly the same rationale that the Islamic extremist groups use to justify their attacks on civilian targets, right?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Theophany]

The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003.

It's "incredibly stupid" to think that a Bush speech in 2003 caused all this. The USA's relationship with Iran has been shitty since 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini's return from exile. To claim otherwise is in flagrant denial of reality and you only oust yourself as some anti-Zionist nutcase.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003.

Ah yes. That must explain how Iran already had such facilities working before 2002, and all those hidden facilities back in the 90's. It also must explain why North Korea has been working on it since the 60's.

Anyway, simple point, you've got the order wrong. They were pursuing nuclear weapons before the speech.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[durrr]

The people of Iran once had a democratically elected leader. The CIA didn't like that and installed a puppet regime, everything went to hell after that.

Although, still Iran do have a quite high standard of living. They only lack several human rights(and the west is trying to catch up in reaching the same limitations) and no democratic elections, despite these flaws, it's a quite stable nation. People may be discontent, but starting a civil war to remove the powers that be requires a fair bit more than discontent. Thus, the people of iran don't really have much of a choice. And with the recent polarization of iran vs the west that is going on, this situation is damn sure to not improve in any progressive and positive manner.

And this is not just about iran and the US and israel. Russia and china are on the sidelines too.

A good recepie for shitstorm reads like this: Increasing geopolitical tensions in the middle of a economic fucking crisis. The more i see this shit play out, the more the picture looks like the US being a powertripping neoimperialistic Rome 2.0 in the decline stage.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just that the people will suffer, it's also that:

1. Sanctions have never worked to accomplish anything, ever.
2. Trade is good for everyone, and it's good for peace.

I could understand sanctions narrowly tailored to weapons and nuclear equipment/material. Of course, those would be impossible to enforce. Not that the current sanctions are any easier to enforce...

What have trade sanctions on Cuba accomplished? What have trade sanctions on North Korea accomplished? I hate how those countries treat their people, but I don't see how trade sanctions do anything but make the situations worse.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[atriusofbricia]

I guess you don't remember Jimmy Carter negotiating a treaty with North Korea back in 1994 almost exactly along the lines you state. Or them cheating on it by continuing to develop nuclear weapons and being called on it even before Bush was elected and well before the Axis of Evil speech.

Remembering that information would conflict with the "Everything that is wrong or has gone wrong in the last 10 - 15 years is George W Bush's fault" pillar. Thus, down the memory hole with that.

The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech along with all the various speeches from him and others in their government saying Israel has no right to exist. I've never really supported the seeming "Israel First" politics of the US government over the last few decades, but to say that Iran only wants to get along with its neighbors and be good little world citizens is a bit off. Again, we can't mention any of that though as it conflicts with the central pillars of "GWB blame" and "USA blame".

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Hatta]

You do those four things, and you won't need to cut off their banks to get them to the table. They'll be *running* to get to the table.

It's not hard to get them at the table. Iran has been negotiating, and the Egyptians even got an agreement out of them, but Obama chose to go forward with sanctions instead of accepting a deal that would have accomplished what the sanctions were intended to accomplish. Check out the March 8th Daily Show with Trita Parsi for details.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

It's incredibly stupid to not realize that the US meddled with Iran before that and overthrew their democratically elected government because Iran nationalized their oil industry. Feel free to wake up to cause and effect!

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[elrous0]

If that is a not-so-subtle attempt at Godwinning me, you should ask yourself what countries Iran has invaded in modern history, or what fascist or imperialist intentions they have shown. You might also want to think about how that argument could so easily be turned back on the U.S., and ask those same questions about the U.S. in the last ten years. The answers point to a truth you probably don't want to think about. So why not just sit down instead?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[hjf]

I was just playing the generalization game. Like he was with his "people allow government to do X" crap.

By his standards, the world is simple: it's your fault if your government does something evil, and you should suffer for it. By that simplification of the world we can also say that all americans are retards. And that every french is smelly, and every japanese is a rapist.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[lwriemen]

The USA's relationship with Iran has been shitty since 1979

Actually, even before that due to our support for the Shah.

As for Israel, Jello Biafra has some interesting comments here.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[elrous0]

No, I meant there is a whole different dynamic on how they pursue negotiations, and how they must be dealt with. Their recent breakneck pursuit of nuclear weapons did indeed begin after the "Axis of Evil" speech. They were even a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was only in 2003 that they withdrew and ratcheted up their nuke and missile program. Read up on it for yourself.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[ByOhTek]

The problem with the generalization game is like the problem with chemical/nuclear warfare - you hit a lot more than your designated targets.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[rhombic]

The USA's relationship with Iran has been shitty since 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini's return from exile. To claim otherwise is in flagrant denial of reality and you only oust yourself as some anti-Zionist nutcase.

1953 wasn't exactly a good year for the relationship between the US and the people of Iran. You know, when the US and Britain overthrew their democratically elected government and converted the Shah from a figurehead to a dictator. The population might have gotten a bit peeved at that.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[CohibaVancouver]

They only lack several human rights

Are you joking? Stoning? Torture? Widespread censorship? Get off Slashdot and go read Amnesty International.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[IamTheRealMike]

What evil things?

Look. The US and EU claim to believe in and promote democracy. There's a very democratic way to handle the decision of whether to apply sanctions on Iran or not - allow individual citizens and companies to decide whether they'll trade with Iran or not. If there is genuine moral outrage at the "evil" things Iran is doing, individuals will refuse to trade and will boycott or publically pressure firms who do.

This clearly has not happened, perhaps because 90% of the people don't give a shit about Iran. Faced with overwhelming democratically proven apathy the "powers that be" have decided to force their citizens hand with decisions that cannot be voted on, or overridden. This is the opposite of democracy, and the kind of blatant hypocrisy that makes people jaded and cynical.

You know what? When the war comes I'll be rooting for Iran. I don't sign on to this perpetual war bullshit but was never asked, won't BE asked, and thanks to our wonderfully centralized financial system won't be able to do anything about it independently either.

And please STFU about Iran being a religious theocracy. Last time I checked every remaining candidate for the Republican nomination is competing on how much they love Jesus and how much they'd oppress people who don't follow their own stone age religious views. American is going to end up in the same place soon enough.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Frangible]

... and, to top it all off, sanctions don't work. This has been clearly demonstrated before with India and Pakistan. Both had clandestine nuclear programs that produced full Teller-Ulam designs and we didn't know about either until it was too late. A few years after sanctions were started, we dropped them.

Fundamentally, nuclear weapons come down to digging rocks out of the ground. Theoretically you don't even need to enrich the uranium; you can use heavy water as a moderator if you have access to an ocean. Which Iran does. So they could produce plutonium entirely from natural uranium. And there is a great deal of natural uranium.

I also don't agree with the notion Iran is going to make weapons from uranium. India and Pakistan didn't. It's a complete waste of uranium. They are better off transmuting uranium into plutonium.

Then again, I never really agreed with the idea of dictating a sovereign nation-state's technological development in the first place. It always has failed, and always will, and just serves to piss a country off and unite its people against you. You reinforce every reason and argument to develop nuclear weapons in the first place, and remove any internal opposition to it.

Nuclear technology cannot be stopped -- it is just too abundant in nature. You might as well try to stop nature itself. We are delusional to think otherwise when we have always failed in the past.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Rakshasa-sensei]

Remembering that information would conflict with the "Everything that is wrong or has gone wrong in the last 10 - 15 years is George W Bush's fault" pillar. Thus, down the memory hole with that.

The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech along with all the various speeches from him and others in their government saying Israel has no right to exist. I've never really supported the seeming "Israel First" politics of the US government over the last few decades, but to say that Iran only wants to get along with its neighbors and be good little world citizens is a bit off. Again, we can't mention any of that though as it conflicts with the central pillars of "GWB blame" and "USA blame".

Iran has elections, just like the US. (And both seem to be about selecting one of two equally bad choices)

Do you really want to base foreign policy on shit that politicians say to win elections? In that case the US looks like the 3rd Reich reborn.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[ledow]

Terrible economic crisis. Yeah, must be hard for you, in your country with free benefit payments, etc. when you lose the 4-bedroom house and have to cash in the SUV. How awful for you.

I'm English, and we had the same - if not worse - impact as you did. You know what? I'd be embarrassed to refer to it as a crisis. Petrol (gas) went up a few pence, a few tens of thousands lost their jobs (while job vacancies are now at an all-time high, and you get guaranteed minimum wage, guaranteed human rights, and the actual *PERCENTAGE* unemployed stayed the same all that time "Unemployment has not been higher since 1995" - so, like, 20 years ago, before all the "economic crisis") and we just had to throw 1/3rd off long-term disability benefits because they were actually able to work all along.

The US started their wars, we'd like to point out, and prolonged them about 10 years longer than necessary and STILL can't recognise basic human rights for non-Americans. Who did that? The guy you chose because he said he wouldn't do that. What are you more concerned with? Could he be non-American and how dare he try to get people into medical treatment if they have no money?

When you elect someone that actually stops your country obliterating citizens in other countries and denying them their basic human rights that almost every other country in the world has signed up to, then you can take the moral high ground. In the meantime, you've elected a warlord who you keep in power because he tries to keep petrol cheap.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[durrr]

Yes it's a lack of several human rights.
Sortof how iraq was under Saddam.

Now they have several human rights, but no one around to enforce them. So the place is a different flavour of hellhole.

The US is also lacking several human rights, but i'm not seeing you picking up any guns to change things. As for voting? They can do that in Iran too. Doesn't help much though, same as in the US, where the media could paint a rainbow picture of hitler and get him elected. Provided he have the money and friends in high places.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[MightyYar]

you should ask yourself what countries Iran has invaded in modern history

Does Hezbollah count? Or are we only counting official military activity. Because if that's the case, the CIA's help to the Shah shouldn't count either.

Iran has done at least as much harm to stability in the mideast as the US, they just don't do it with "shock and awe". Israel is a major irritant to mideast stability, and Iran is one of the biggest reasons.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[JoshuaZ]

Er, there's a bit wrong with your statement here. Most obviously, the axis of evil speech occurred in January of 2002, not 2003. That helps your case a bit, because a lot of the more serious failures of cooperation by Iran and North Korea occurred towards the end of 2002.. However, in both cases, there were serious failures to cooperate with international inspections before the speech. The entire James Kelly visit to North Korea was over evidence of non-cooperation that had been building up since the late Clinton years. Similarly, in the case of Iran, Iran had likely begun building new nuclear sites since before the speech http://guests.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/517/exiles-and-iran-intel. You can make an argument that Iran and North Korea may have accelerated their programs due to the Axis of Evil speech, and that's a more nuanced and viable argument, but that's a much weaker statement.

Moving on from there, there are other factual problems with your remarks. You claimed that

Iran has never shown itself to be a particularly hostile or irrational nation in any military sense

Right, so funding Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad isn't at all evidence of a "particularly hostile" or "irrational" attitude. http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362. Iran doesn't even share a direct border with Israel but they are one of the largest supporters of attacks on Israel. That doesn't exactly scream peaceful to me.

There are enough factual problems as pointed out above, that your four point proposal simply doesn't make sense.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Opportunist]

Of all the people living in countries with "free" elections, as a US citizen you should know best what it's like to have only the choice between a giant douche and a turd sammich, and how electing either is as good as electing neither.

They have the same effin' choice there. Well, even worse, actually, because the only choice they have BY LAW is to vote for an Islamist government. With the only alternative to start a rebellion. Which is, again, something you should know best about. From BOTH, your own country AND the Iran, the rebellion of 1979 was quite intimately tied to the US. You might remember, or at least notice, that it takes a DAMN LOT to get enough people pissed enough to get anything like that off the ground.

Besides, you know what the real reason was for them to be kicked out of the international banking system? I mean, let's be honest, if it was for their actions, how about sanctions? Or how about trade embargos? Or maybe just parking an aircraft carrier in the Strait of Hormuz? Allow me to let you in on a secret: Come 20th of March, Iran will sell its oil for any currency. Yep. No longer they will require you to pay in Dollars. Euros, Rubels, Rupies, it's all good. Does this very specific move make, i.e. to make trading with them more difficult, a lot more sense now? Hmm? Maybe?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[MightyYar]

2. Trade is good for everyone, and it's good for peace.

In general I agree with this, but oil is a different beast. Oil can be extracted by foreign contractors and nearly all the proceeds can be kept by the powers-that-be. It's one of those rare exceptions, probably because it generates huge revenue without involving any of the people who happen to live in the country. The leaders can build palaces and build huge armies - they don't need the people for anything, really. And even if they piss off the entire civilized world, the uncivilized world will still buy the oil. In short, there is no real incentive for peace.

What have trade sanctions on Cuba accomplished?

Well, nothing - but it should be noted that only the US is really sanctioning them. It's a pain, but not something that would suffocate the economy - Castro managed that all by himself.

What have trade sanctions on North Korea accomplished?

I'm not quite sure "nothing" is the right answer here, but I'm certain that this regime would have collapsed by now if not for the direct support of China - the sanctions don't mean much when the huge country just across your border isn't on board. It would be like putting sanctions on Canada but not getting the US on board.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is very important to clarify the motivations of Iran when dealing with Israel. I think many would assume it's antisemitism, but I would wager it is mostly predicated on self-defense and geopolitics. Remember that Iran has a Jewish population of around 30,000, which is the second largest in the Middle East aside from Israel. If Iran were really on a crusade of killing Jews(which I think many often mistakenly allege), would they not just start with their own people?

Iran views Israel as a projection of USA dominance. So to be honest, I think the most wise policy is to heed the suggestions of George Washington and drop our entangling alliances and stop meddling in the foreign affairs of nations. If Israel wants to nuke Iran, let them. Just don't expect us to be behind them.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[mrops]

This picture called, it says it disagrees with you

http://www.conspiracyuk.co.uk/iran-who-is-threatening-who/

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[digitig]

The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech

The mistranslation of the speech that the person in (IIRC) 14th place in the chain of command made? I can't think why the OP didn't think that was worth mentioning.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[emilper]

the government of Iran kinda was elected ... they're one of the few to hold elections in the area, and relatively free ... they can't change the regime, but can choose who runs it

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[DigiShaman]

Well no shit! When nations sneak around covert programs that are by and large frowned upon by the international community, it only startles them to hasten the speed by which they develop them. Let me make it crystal clear. The "Axis of Evil" speech did *not* cause them to develop weapons. That's been going on longer than when Clinton was in office. No, it simply pointed out the level of BS going on by these two counties and others (NKorea and Iran). Publicly speaking out about it is equivalent to shining a spotlight on a thief at night. It causes them to either work faster or run away in fear.

GWB speech changed the dynamics. He thought maintaining the current status status quo was unacceptable. Their are arguments to be made that taking a divisive was either the right or wrong course of action.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Moryath]

The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003.

North Korea's been pursuing nuclear weapon technology and missile technology since the 1990s, remember the 1994 treaty where they "promised to stop"?

When the largest military power in the world labels you as one of three "Axis of Evil" members, then proceeds to invade one of the other two, it tends to make you a bit twitchy. And, both Iran and NK know that the only way to really protect yourself from U.S. invasion is with nuclear weapons.

Oh, I agree there. It certainly made Kim Jong Nutbag run screaming into even more isolationism, and I'd argue it was a larger factor in Iran's becoming more hostile to the world in general; it certainly scuppered an ongoing wave of westernization as the mullahs saw another chance to crack down by declaring a new round of "eliminate the influence of the great satan."

Due mainly to Israeli and U.S. propaganda,

Seig something...

But the fact is that Iran has never shown itself to be a particularly hostile or irrational nation in any military sense.

Oh? They invaded Iraq. They've been weapons peddlers to rogue states for over 30 years. They do tend to operate by proxy, but their military actions from Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza are well, well documented. And both their crazy idiot president and the Mullahs are on record on what they would do to Israel if they "had the means," often including the words "wipe Israel off the face of the map."

So we cut off their banks and hit them with sanctions. Fine. A lot of Iranian people will suffer. And maybe this will lead them to negotiate, maybe not.

Well, the hope is that it will. It's what the UN decides on, and it's better than going to war.

But you know what I bet would ABSOLUTELY lead them to negotiate and drop their nuke program?

I bet you're going to tell us. And I bet you're going to miss out on the cultural issues of being seen as "weak" by coming into some form of negotiation unilaterally, especially the muslim/arab/persian tribalist dynamics involved. So let's move on.

1) Offer a few public goodwill gestures to make it clear that the U.S. is *not* going to invade them or attack them
Like what - sending a ton of earthquake aid? Whoops, we did that. Not attacking them for all this time? We did that too. Offering unilateral negotiotions? Obama did that, and then the crazy-ass Republicans shot it all down. You want to know who's causing the problems right now, making Iran think they're going to be attacked, you want to look at Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and my personal favorite, Rick "end times" Santorum.

2) Tell Mossad to stop assassinating their scientists, or face sanctions of their own.
Ah yes, Mossad, the eternal bogeyman of the muslim/arab/persian region. Anything happens? Blame "Mossad." Assassinated your brother in law to ascend to the throne? Don't worry, blame Mossad. Killed yourself from a life of excess while stealing the aid money intended for the poor (Arafat)? Don't worry, your followers will say "Mossad poisoned him." And on and on. The moment you get into stupid shit like this, you just reveal your own bias.

3) Reign [sic] in Israel and make it clear to them that attacking Iran will NOT be tolerated, and will cost them the friendship of the U.S.
Really? We should take over the Israeli government by force and set up a puppet state? Last time there was one there it was called the Mandate of Palestine and the British ran it... then they parceled off Transjordan and refused to allow Jews to move anywhere but "Palestine" because the Arabs were bitching about too many Jews spreading out... then it was split in half and the Arabs launched a genocidal war to wipe out the Jews anyways.

4) Normalizing relations with Iran.
Normalizing relations is a product of negotiations. W

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[root_42]

The keys of your first and second post were so close together... Could have happened to anyone...

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

I'm not anti republican (I am republican) but the "regime" we got rid of spent money like they didn't understand the value.

With George Bush being a rich child who never had to earn a thing, it's not surprising.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[root_42]

What evil things?

Look. The US and EU claim to believe in and promote democracy. There's a very democratic way to handle the decision of whether to apply sanctions on Iran or not - allow individual citizens and companies to decide whether they'll trade with Iran or not. If there is genuine moral outrage at the "evil" things Iran is doing, individuals will refuse to trade and will boycott or publically pressure firms who do.

Democratic does not always equal morally or ethically correct. The society is made up of egoistic individuals. Most of us would buy products from Iran. Heck, I am buying stuff from Apple, produced at "the evil Foxconn". Because it's affordable and cool! But I am glad that there are institutions (many of them democratically elected) that serve as a moral / ethical watchdog. I am glad that they are applying sanctions. Our individual egotism is useful in day to day life, but hinders the greater society's values. So I think the system as we have it is already on a good track. It just needs some tweaking.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Sarten-X]

Hey, you're right! We (unwittingly) elected a Muslim to President!

...So?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[darkmeridian]

I am far from an apologist for Iran, but Ahmadinejad never said that he would wipe Israel off the map. He said that the Zionist government of Israel should be erased from history. In effect, he was calling for regime change just like we did. The story was based on a misreporting of the translation.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[TheMiddleRoad]

Don't forget Gaza and Iraq. There are supertankers full of Palestinian and Iraqi blood on Iranian hands.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[rainmouse]

You do realise that's exactly the same rationale that the Islamic extremist groups use to justify their attacks on civilian targets, right?

Perhaps you do not realise how naive you are being, but please understand that economic sanctions are a war against civilian targets that in the past have typically caused far more civilian casualties than the physical warfare does. It's just a measurable flaw in our evolved sense of morality that allows us to far more readily accept collateral death but call out direct violence as immeasurably more evil. Arguably our governments are massively more evil than the terrorist regimes who blow themselves up in crowded places as the death toll against civilians caused by sanctions alone is exponentially larger.

wiki article about Iraq sanctions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

paper on A Dissociation Between Moral Judgments and Justication: http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/Hauser_MindLang.pdf

.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Nadaka]

The elected leadership of Iran is a figurehead with no real power. and the last election was very clearly rigged the last time so that the Supreme Clerical Council would not have to invest effort in grooming a new pawn.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[medcalf]

You do realize that Iran has been waging a slow war on the US since 1979, right? Look up, for instance, Khobar Towers. Also, both the Iranian and N Korean programs predate Bush's speech. But other than getting the facts wrong, great post. The ideological position was clearly stated.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

If it speeds our withdrawal from that shit hole, it's a means to an end.

I don't know why we're still in Afghanistan anyway.

We should leave them be with the warning that the next attack will be the last thing they do as a people.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[medcalf]

Actually, yes we do. We have been electing people from the stupid party and the evil party for decades without throwing them out or demanding real systemic fixes. We have the ability to turn them out or force the changes, but have not done so. Therefore we deserve the consequences of our leadership's policies. If those consequences include suffering, then we deserve the suffering.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Talderas]

I think it is very important to clarify the motivations of Iran when dealing with Israel. I think many would assume it's antisemitism, but I would wager it is mostly predicated on self-defense and geopolitics. Remember that Iran has a Jewish population of around 30,000, which is the second largest in the Middle East aside from Israel. If Iran were really on a crusade of killing Jews(which I think many often mistakenly allege), would they not just start with their own people?

Why would they? Wiping out the 30k local Jews after wiping out Israel makes more strategic sense since wiping out the 30k would likely illicit a response from Israel and other nations.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Anonymous Coward]

The dynamic at work is that every time the US has managed to make progress in negotiations with North Korea, the US has then prompty reneged on its side of the deal. Usually it's been the case that after the agreement was signed between the two countries, there has subsequently been a change in the US administration, and the new administration decides that they want to cancel all the treaties signed by the previous administration.

Generally, the agreements have been of the nature "The US agrees to build and supply modern large-scale nuclear power plants in North Korea, and North Korea agrees not to produce nuclear weapons." What North Korea really wants is huge amounts of electricity and agricultural aid (which is why it always signs such agreements, and is usually interested in negotiations).

Then, North Korea, seeing the actions of the US (such as building most of a nuclear power plant, then abandoning construction before completion because the new administration wants to be seen as "hard-line") as bad faith and breach of contract (and rightly so), resumes the activities that it had agreed to cease, because that seems to be the only way to get the US back to the negotiating table.

Repeat ad nauseum.

Incidentally, the issue regarding Iran is not that they are building nuclear weapons, or even trying to. The issue is that they are aiming to achieve complete mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle, and thus nuclear energy self-sufficiency. This would achieve several things: first, all of the oil currently going to domestic energy needs in Iran could then be exported. Secondly, Iran could massively improve and expand infrastructure and industry, given a vast and self-sufficient supply of nuclear energy. Third, they would be able to export low-enriched nuclear fuel assemblies to other countries who want to have nuclear energy.

It's that third point that is really irking countries such as the US; currently, there is an exclusive cartel which enriches nuclear fuel and sells nuclear fuel assemblies. Thus, prices are fixed, and very high. An independent vendor outside the cartel would upset that monopoly and its price structure, not to mention that it might consider selling nuclear fuel assemblies (or even complete reactors) to poor countries populated by brown people, thus enabling those countries to improve their infrastructure and standard of living in turn. Something the US (and France, and the energy corporations therein, etc.) very much do not want.

It's never been about nuclear weapons. Look at the wording of the official statements on both sides; the complaints against Iran are always taking issue with the fact that Iran is continuing "enrichment activities" and its "nuclear program". There has never been any mention of even "high enrichment" or a "nuclear weapons program" in official documents; the complaint is that Iran is enriching uranium at all, under a "nuclear energy program", however the wording "nuclear program" is used to allow ignorant people to unconsciously insert the word "weapons" in between by themselves, because that's what most people think of first when they hear "nuclear program" or even "nuclear". Wake up.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Aryden]

It is not, nor has it been, anything to do with Jewish people existing. It has everything to do with A) having land taken away from what you consider "your people", B) The Qur'an requires that no lands under Muslim rule shall ever be given up, C) It also requires Muslims to conquer the Dar alHarb, all of non-islamic lands, D) If you had land or items taken away from you, you'd want them back too.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[phantomfive]

Iran has elections, just like the US.

Do you remember all the protests about the unfair elections last year? Do you also remember how the government started killing protestors? Do you also remember that you can be arrested for criticizing the government in Iran?

IF YOU DON'T HAVE FREEDOM TO CRITICIZE THE GOVERNMENT, YOU DON'T HAVE DEMOCRACY. This is extremely important, and is why the US constitution specifically protects freedom of speech.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[khallow]

So to be honest, I think the suggestion of George Washington to drop alliances and stop meddling in the foreign affairs of nations is the view of a field general with no understanding of the important work done by Franklin and Jefferson, and one born of naivete.

At the time that George Washington made that statement against "foreign entanglements", he was retiring from eight years as US president, which is a much different and more global view than that of a field general (I might add here, a field general who worked hand in hand with the French and ran an effective spy network during the war). So no, I wouldn't consider that "born of naivete".

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[phantomfive]

... and, to top it all off, sanctions don't work. This has been clearly demonstrated before with India and Pakistan.

The sanctions against Iran go far, far deeper than anything that was tried against India and Pakistan.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[MightyMartian]

The elected government of Iran (the President and the Parliament) govern essentially at the whim of the Supreme Leader (it's probably more complicated than that, the Basij and the Revolutionary Guard seem to have considerable influence). The Supreme Leader can strike anyone off the ballot, so what you largely end up with is somewhere between the Soviet pseudo-democracy and a full democracy; some independence except on key issues like foreign affairs.

I wouldn't exactly call it choosing a government when who can appear on a ballot is restricted by a guy who claims that he's doing what God wants.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[phantomfive]

As for voting? They can do that in Iran too.

Any place that does not have freedom of speech can not be called a democracy, no matter how much they vote. The USSR had voting, too. Voting alone does not make a democracy.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[fredrated]

"We should leave them be with the warning that the next attack will be the last thing they do as a people."

What 'next attack'? We were never attacked by the people of Afghanistan. I would wager that most of them don't even know why we are occupying their country.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[steelfood]

The OP also failed to mention Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" speech

A lot of things get lost in translation, and some things are misquoted and taken out of context. For Ahmadinejad, it happens quite often on purpose. You can't rally the troops at home if your "enemy" actually sounds reasonable. The English translations are just propoganda pieces. He may be an antisemite (or may not--not supporting Israel has nothing to do with being antisemetic despite what everybody wants you to think), but he's not crazy.

He didn't actually say "wipe Israel off the map." He said something closer to, "It'd be better if Israel didn't exist." To paraphrase, he meant there wouldn't be as many problems in the Middle East if Israel hadn't been created in the first place.

There are numerous other things that he supposedly said that paint a very negative picture of him. These are mostly untrue when taken in context and translated properly. In order to even understand the situation, you first have to recognize that when it comes to any information related to Israel, the propaganda machine is on full blast. Some of it is unintentional, but most of it is very intentional.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[bkaul01]

Yes, and while D) is perfectly reasonable, C) seems like quite a valid cause for concern for other nations: we're talking about a theocratic government whose religion requires that its adherents (eventually) conquer the world, which government appears to take a particularly fundamentalist, literal view of the "conquer" aspect of that, and which is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech was an observation of this, not the cause of it. Iran and N Korea were off the reservation for decades before he made that speech, and have continued to be "rogue nations" regardless of diplomacy. Saying we should normalize relations is all well and good, except that it neglects the fact that these nations are not approaching issues from a common worldview. It's not that they're irrational: it's that their philosophy, beliefs, and goals are so radically different from our own that we don't have a common premise from which to work.

That's not to say that I think invading them is the right course of action here (I don't), but in many ways, diplomacy is destined to fail, if it is based on the assumption that they just want to get along. "Diplomatic bribery" of a sort could still work: that is, don't assume they want what we want, but figure out something they actually do want, and use that carrot to convince them to give up the nuclear ambitions. The stick of economic isolation has the potential to be pretty effective if we pair it with the right carrot.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[khallow]

The same could be said for Clinton and GWB, both of whom have had 8 years as president, and been privy to the information obtained by US spy networks. Even Obama, who is continuing the work of those previous presidents, is poised to get 4 more years. Perhaps their decisions to continue so called "foreign entanglements" with respect to Iran and the Middle East in general were just as well-informed as Washington?

No, I don't think so. It's worth noting that Washington brings a lot of life experiences that these other people don't have. He fought in two wars and served in the Virginia state militia. He ran a very successful farm. And then there's his personal attitude and judgment. He had the wisdom to retire after eight years when nothing kept him from being president for life. I value his opinion on this subject in a way I wouldn't other presidents because I think he had a lot more experience and wisdom than these other presidents have had.

And perhaps you ought to read Washington's speech in question? What is an argument from authority? When the basis of the argument is the authority of the speaker. Washington doesn't say "avoid foreign entanglements because I said so". He gives reasons why. For example, he advocates not to feel unconditional enmity for certain countries or favoritism for others. To do so, in his words leads to a "variety of evils" such as getting involved in conflicts which aren't our business and unfair favoritism of one country over another.

Second, such entanglements allow for foreign powers to stir conflicts locally. Washington in particularly rails against the harm that foreign influence can do to "republican government".

I could go on, but I'm lazy here. Point is that Washington makes good points, points which are still valid today. That doesn't mean in themselves that we should follow his words. But to dismiss the argument as being from authority misses the point.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[binarylarry]

A part of the ruling government housed and aided an attack on the United States.

They helped train the attackers and provided material support.

Where do you revisionist fucktards come from?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[isorox]

Any place that does not have freedom of speech can not be called a democracy, no matter how much they vote.

What good is freedom of speech if you can't be heard? Unlike the 1780s, where it was reasonable to believe that a middle-class charistmatic person had a chance to influence a sizeable proportion of voters, nowadays you need access to big media, for a long time, and all levels, and the PR skills to use that access to further your goals.

Ranting on your blog to 2000 followers isn't going to help.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Chris Mattern]

Iran has elections, just like the US.

They do? Where in the Constitution must all candidates be officially approved by a panel of unelected religious overlords before they are legally allowed to run? I missed that part, somehow...

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Chris Mattern]

India was under Persian rule for a long time. Now it is no longer Persian or Muslim, but secular (Hindu majority).

Talk to some Pakistanis some time. They want it back.

Similarly, Afghanistan was taken over by Russia after a long Muslim-secular rule.

And now it's in a war to see if it'll be run by the moderate (and corrupt) Muslims or the hard-line Muslims.

Spain for a period was Islamic.

And there are Muslims who haven't forgotten that, either. al-Quaeda in particular has been vocal in calling for the reclaiming of al-Andalus. It's not happening, of course, but they still maintain the claim.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[forkfail]

Amusing, maybe, but incredibly disingenuous.

Because to a lot of liberals, it wouldn't matter. But lying about it might well matter. Thus, what is being protested is the fact that Faux is accusing Obama of lying (as well as being a Muslim). They conflate the defense against the accusation of lying and the denial that he is a Muslim, when they are in fact two seperate issues.

So, I'd say that your amusement is probably the sort of mocking attitude that Faux loves to generate. Even if they can't sell you on all their BS, they've managed to change the discussion and argument from what matters to meta arguments about their tactics.

Oh, and for the record: I'm a liberal who doesn't think particularly highly of the Muslim religion. So, please, go easy on the sweeping generalizations.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

The ordinary people will suffer. This is both an act of war and a war-crime. Collective economic punishment as brutal as burning crops and poisoning reservoirs.

The real reason? Protecting the Imperial dollar as supreme instrument of International economic hegemony.

The nukes are a pantomime

Last week, the Tehran Times noted that the Iranian oil bourse will start trading oil in currencies other than the dollar from March 20. This long-planned move is part of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's vision of economic war with the west.
"The dispute over Iran's nuclear programme is nothing more than a convenient excuse for the US to use threats to protect the 'reserve currency' status of the dollar," the newspaper, which calls itself the voice of the Islamic Revolution, said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/commodities/9077600/Iran-presses-ahead-with-dollar-attack.html

Beware the "Ahmadinejad" bullshit in the above post. The position of President in Iranian politics has even less power to establish or enforce policy than does that of a US President.

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[Xest]

"It's never been about nuclear weapons. Look at the wording of the official statements on both sides; the complaints against Iran are always taking issue with the fact that Iran is continuing "enrichment activities" and its "nuclear program". There has never been any mention of even "high enrichment" or a "nuclear weapons program" in official documents; the complaint is that Iran is enriching uranium at all, under a "nuclear energy program", however the wording "nuclear program" is used to allow ignorant people to unconsciously insert the word "weapons" in between by themselves, because that's what most people think of first when they hear "nuclear program" or even "nuclear". Wake up."

Why do you feel the need to outright lie?

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf

Page 7, section G. Specifically:

43. The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:

- Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by
military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);

- Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex,
Section C.3);

- The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and

- Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of
components (Annex, Sections C.5â"C.12).

It really couldn't be more clear could it? I don't think there's anything "unconscious" (I think you mean subconscious) about reading the clear as day use of the word weapons in the official IAEA reports direct from the source.

I think you need to check the facts before forming an opinion and then telling everyone else to wake up. The IAEA has on numerous occasions stated there have definitely in the past, and still possibly are military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program and that they can't confirm that there's an innocent explanation for their more recent discovery of evidence that points to a military dimension to Iran's nuclear programme because Iran wont let them confirm that it's all innocent.

Hell, there's not even any evidence to back up your rant about the situation with North Korea regarding Americans signing agreements then pulling back, so I can only assume that's all completely made up too. I can't find anything about the US building half a nuclear reactor on North Korean soil then giving up half way through. Source?

Even your theory about a nuclear power cartel is completely nonsensical, I mean really? this cartel is global in reach and has manage to magically bridge partisan divides in tying together Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the US? That's a pretty awesome cartel tying countries together that have such varied and often opposing political landscapes. Who runs the cartel? The Illuminati maybe? Why would countries with decades of nuclear export experience be scared of a country that isn't providing tried and tested reactors? who wants a dodgy untested Iranian reactor on their soil?

Still, I'm sorry that the facts don't match up with your made up conspiracy theory. Perhaps you'd like to retire from the conspiracy theory market and consider writing thriller novels? Tom Clancy is getting a bit long in the tooth.

Christ it's becoming more and more obvious Slashdot is one of the worst sites on the net for political discussion, +5 interesting for a completely made up conspiracy theory with some pretty wild and nonsensical arguments, backed up by not the slightest shred of evidence? really?

Re:The people will be the ones who suffer

[phantomfive]

For a functioning democracy, you need to be able to criticize the government without repercussion. At that point, although there may be other limitations on speech, you can start to convince other people to change those limitations. Plenty of democracies meet that requirement.

I wonder what happens when..

[Severus Snape]

They become a full nuclear power. Do we sit down and talk, then play nice with them?

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[Forty Two Tenfold]

You did it with the Jewish invaders of Palestine, why not with Persians?

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[Dog-Cow]

Palestine is the name of the formerly-sovereign state of Israel, given by the Romans after their conquest. So the Jews invaded their own country?

Re:I wonder what happens when..

[Oswald McWeany]

A large number of them are European/American that moved back there in the last two or three generations. Both sides probably hate this- but the current Palestinians are probably more genetically related to the people that the Romans once ruled there. Nonetheless- you can't tell the people descended from those that moved there from Europe and America to "go-back" that is impractical.

What would make much more sense is if they all just got-along and learned to live nicely with each other. Yeah, I know- not going to happen.

Reign in Israel?

[wiredog]

Right. Because invading a country with ICBMs will work out so much better.

Re:Reign in Israel?

[wiredog]

Heh. Well, that does change the meaning just a bit... Damn homonyms.

It's not about nukes.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about dollar-backed oil.

New SWIFT

[Anonymous Coward]

Cutting iran off SWIFT may lead to development of new messaging system between Iran, Russia, China etc. This would make banks of those countries less dependent on western entities.

Re:New SWIFT

[Coeurderoy]

It will probably just prompt massive increase of the chinese investments in iran ...
they do not care that much about swift, barter is nice, more margins...

US wants SWIFT war on Iran (because of oil bourse)

[jbaach]

"...wait for March 20, when the Iranian oil bourse will start trading oil in other currencies apart from the US dollar..."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB17Ak04.html

(No, I haven't read the full article, it was linked on wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse#Opening )

Sad world...

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel on the other hand, with all the nukes they have, gets a free SWIFT pass.
Even if Iran owned a nuclear weapon, they wouldn't want to nuke Israel. The mosque in Jerusalem is the second holiest in the Muslim world, after Mecca. Nuking Israel would mean the destruction of a holy Muslim city.

Re:Sad world...

[Canazza]

so, they could easilly nuke Tel Aviv and not disturb Jerusalem. Israel has more than one population center, and Tel Aviv IS the major financial center.

Paypal

[Hyperhaplo]

The effect will be to drastically hinder Iran's ability to execute international business transactions."

So... just use Paypal?

Re:Paypal

[Anonymous Coward]

Next up on Slashdot: Iran pissed after their funds are placed on 90 day PayPal review.

Seems like a lot of power

[Sez Zero]

Seems like a lot of power for a little NGO.

SWIFT is a co-operative society under Belgian law, which its shareholders own and control

Just in case you didn't think global capitalism and corporations were significant, here's a good reminder.

Re:Clarification

[andyteleco]

While I don't like Ahmadineyad because after all he is a ruthless dictator, he never really said that Israel should be destroyed:

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/24-media-misquotes-threat-from-irans-president/

It's just one more example of media manipulation for the generation of hatred to later justify an invasion and/or screw-up of a country.

Who is threatning who?

[mrops]

Came across this the other day....

I would want Nukes if I saw this.

http://www.conspiracyuk.co.uk/iran-who-is-threatening-who/

Re:Who is threatning who?

[realityimpaired]

One of those black dots representing a military base is in the middle of the arabian sea.... While it is probably meant to represent the presence of a US carrier battlegroup or something, it's a bit disingenuous to call it a military base.

That's not to say that the US military presence in the middle east isn't excessive, nor that Iran doesn't have a right to be a bit twitchy, especially with idiots on the Republican primary trail saying that the first thing they'd do if they're elected president is invade Iran, but they shouldn't need to manufacture an american military base on the bottom of the ocean in order to convince people that Iran has a point....

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Anonymous Coward]

A US aircraft carrier can keep more planes in the air than most countries entire air force. If that doesn't count as a military base then I don't know what does.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Savage-Rabbit]

A US aircraft carrier can keep more planes in the air than most countries entire air force. If that doesn't count as a military base then I don't know what does.

That's not all, a US aircraft carrier group is bigger than most countries entire navies as well and if you thrown in a couple of marine divisions and some landing craft they'd probably give most standing armies on earth as a run for their money as well.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[mrxak]

Which is why it's so silly to think of Iran as a rational actor as some have unfortunately claimed. No rational nation would decide to build nuclear weapons in this day and age. Developing them just makes everyone nervous and want to build their own. Having them just increases your responsibilities. Using them just assures your own annihilation.

Yes, there's the theory that by having them you prevent anyone from ever wanting to invade you. But that's only a reason to already have them, not to get everyone's ire by trying to get them. If you want to join the nuclear club, you do it in absolute secrecy, then make a big announcement after you're already armed. But once the secret's already out about your development efforts, it's time to apologize, state your clear intentions not to keep going all the way, and quickly dismantle whatever you've done.

Okay, so they're worried about us maybe invading them someday, but why would we do that? Because we seem eager to get into wars in the region? Well, not really, not really. We went into Afghanistan because we got attacked. We went into Iraq because we thought they were making WMDs. The lesson here is not that we are jumping at the chance to invade countries all over the middle east, but that we will only do so if you attack us or threaten mushroom clouds. Granted the Iraqi WMD thing turned out to not be quite as big a deal as we may have once thought, but clearly the solution to not being next is not brazenly building nukes right next door.

Let's face it, Iran is already plenty powerful and influential in the region. We saw to that by bumping off their biggest rival, Iraq. They don't need a bomb, now, nor should they want a bomb. They seem to be trying to get one anyway. If they're this reckless about acquiring nuclear weapons, how reckless will they be once they have them? Scary stuff.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[b5bartender]

Except there's a problem with your statement--there is zero evidence that Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons. Even the US Director of National Intelligence has acknowledged this fact in his testimony before Congress. The "crazy" and "irrational" hyperbole that keeps creeping up in anti-Iran rhetoric only serves the interests of the hawks who want war.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[MightyMartian]

Most of the estimates I've read suggest that any attempt by Iran to close the Strait would pretty much lead to the obliteration of their navy, airforce and anti-aircraft capabilities in about a week. Libya's airforce and anti-aircraft capabilities was quickly dispatched, and most of the campaign was spent offering air support to the rebels.

Yes, Iran has lots of theoretical soldiers, mainly poorly equipped Basij, but what good does a fanatic with a rifle do against a bomber or an aircraft carrier a hundred miles off the coast. If the objective is to limit or eliminate Iran's capability of projecting its force into the Strait or the Gulf in general, and not having to actually invade or support any kind of hostilities on the ground, it would be very easy.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Savantissimo]

Err... there is no credible evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, despite all the inspections. As signers of the non-proliferation treaty, Iran is entitled to the assistance of all other signatories in developing the full nuclear cycle, including enrichment and reactors. The US is not meeting its obligations under the treaty, to say the least. There is quite literally nothing Iran could do that would satisfy the US government, let alone Israel, so they might as well carry on.

The rest of your post is also wrong. If we invaded Afghanistan because "they attacked us", then how come Pakistan ans Saudi Arabia weren't given the same treatment, though they has as much or more to do with the attacks as the government of Afghanistan? How come we refused to give any evidence of OBL's crimes to the Afghans when they offered to put him on trial, prior to the invasion? How come the forces for the invasion were already in place on 9/11? Sure looks like a convenient excuse for what was already in the works. And is it really a coincidence that opium production went from near-zero to 90% of the world market immediately after the invasion, with our buds the Northern Alliance producing the lion's share?

As for Iraq, we know that the intelligence was deliberately falsified by those at the very top, who literally would not listen to anything that didn't confirm their preconceptions. They may have believed that there were WMDs, but they had no factual reason to believe that. More likely they were deliberately lying to the public for their own greedy, corrupt reasons.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[coredog64]

As signers of the non-proliferation treaty, Iran is entitled to the assistance of all other signatories in developing the full nuclear cycle, including enrichment and reactors.

You conveniently left out that the NPT also requires them to allow the IAEA unfettered access to their program to confirm that it's civilian in nature. That is not happening and is used as justification for the sanctions.

Re:Who is threatning who?

[Savantissimo]

Yet in fact they have given unfettered access to their nuclear sites. You also left out the fact that the Security Council has no right to override the NPT with demands that Iran cease enrichment, thus the legal basis for sanctions just isn't there. Not to mention the fact that we were willing to give the brutal Shah a plutonium reprocessing plant (uncompleted), but as soon as the popular revolution threw out the corrupt regime , we not only stole all the Iranians' foreign assets, including all of Iran's uranium which had been sent out to an Iranian joint venture company in France to be enriched.

Iran's oil is going to run out, and in the meantime, it's their only major foreign trade item. They need nuclear power, they have a right to nuclear power and any idea that the US or Israel or the UN Security Council has the right to deny the ancient and sovereign nation of Iran the rights allowed even some private corporations in the West is just pure chutzpah. If any part of the nuclear cycle is subject to foreign veto, Iran will never be independent, it will be unable to even keep the lights on without being a servile subject to foreign powers.

Re:Double standards AGAIN....

[rnswebx]

try this

Iran doesnt project military force

[voss]

It backs terrorist groups in Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey,etc,etc. Then again we made nice with Qaddafi before we starting shooting his own people and he blew up a US airliner and bombed a cafe full of US soldiers.

If you really want to get an idea of bizarre US policy look at Cuba. Cuba hasnt sponsored Terrorism in 40 years and is still embargoed while we did business with Qaddafi and Iran. Americans can visit North Korea a country we are still technically at war with but they cant visit Cuba a country we were never at war with and we are one of their largest trading partners.

Re:Iran doesnt project military force

[gmack]

That is mainly because Castro likes the embargo and has actively worked against being removed. The half baked embargo allowed Fidel Castro to blame the Americans for everything that went wrong in Cuba even if it had nothing to do with the embargo.
Check this out

Clinton noted that in 1996, when her husband former President Bill Clinton was seeking to improve ties, Cuba shot down two small U.S. planes that were distributing leaflets. The incident effectively ended that overture.

Since then he has made sure to lob insults at both Bush and Obama near the beginning of their terms just to make sure the embargo sticks.

Re:Iran doesnt project military force

[Rakarra]

Because invading Cuba's airspace was clearly a smart move eh?
You know, one can easily look at this from a different angle.
The US likes the embargo, but wants to look like they're trying to be the good guys, so they're 'seeking to improve ties' while at the same time disrespecting Cuba and forcing them to shoot down two planes.
But no, obviously the mad Cubans are at fault with their warmongering and especially because Castro loves the embargo.

The embargo still exists because of one major reason -- there is a giant ex-Cuban population in Florida and they are rabidly anti-Castro. They oppose any attempt to lift the embargo. Florida is a disproportionately powerful swing state in the Presidential election (it was the deciding state in 2000, but it's always been a tough area). No President can afford to disregard them.

Re:No, Ahmadinnerjacket is not a dictator

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he isn't a dictator. The Supreme Leader is the one actually in charge.

Barter HELPS avoid sanctions

[Gothmolly]

How do you track when someone swaps 100 tons of wheat or 100 bars of gold for some barrels of oil? You can't. If you "let" them use the international monetary system, you have a means of tracking all their activites. Follow the money and you find the bad guys. Giving them a pass on that lets them trade with whomever they want without any trace.

WTF? Obama already tried "goodwill"

[unassimilatible]

Obama already reached out to Iran. He began his presidency apologetically acknowledging U.S. involvement in a coup that happened more than 50 years ago. He then offered bilateral negotiations that, predictably, failed miserably (that was the whole plan of two-party talks, to blame the mean Americans and walk out). And, of course, Obama didn't support the 2009 uprising (when protesters were yelling, "where are you Obama?"), and has continued the blacklisting of Mujahedin-e Khalq (or MEK), the Iranian dissident movement as a terror organization, so as not to upset the Mullahs.

And what did Obama get for his "goodwill" as you put it?

Continued lethal Iranian assistance to guerrillas killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan; a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador by blowing up a Washington restaurant; the announcement by a member of parliament of Iranian naval exercises to shut down the Strait of Hormuz; undoubted Chinese and Russian access to a captured U.S. drone for the copying and countering of its high-tech secrets.

It's worked great! Let's try appeasement again. Because this time will be different.

Re:WTF? Obama already tried "goodwill"

[iluvcapra]

1) Iranians already knew the US put the Shah in power and any "apology" only reasserted facts that had been commonplace since the 70s, and which the British had already acknowledged in any event. What most Iranians are waiting for is the apology from the US for putting the Ayatollah in power -- my Persian girlfriend (left in 2005) tells me that pretty much everyone in the democratic and monarchist movements in Iran assume that the US was behind exiling the Shah to Egypt and putting Ayatollah Khomeini in power, and it really doesn't matter how many times I try to explain to her that the US had nothing to gain from it. All Iranian reformers know is that their country has been completely fucked up by the ayatollahs, America benefits from Iran being fucked up (for oil, ???, profit), thus America put the ayatollahs in power, QED.

2) The Wikileaks cables made it clear that the MEK is a cult that once proposed mass suicides and uses brainwashing to adhere members. It's lobbying campaign in the US Congress and ability to win support in that august body is despicable.

3) The leader of the 2009 uprising, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, was a strident supporter of Iran's nuclear program and the constitution of the Iranian republic in general -- we could discount his claims as rhetoric, but then we have to throw out just about everything Ahmadi says on the same grounds. The fact is there are no good options for "regime change" in Iran for the US, or Israel for that matter -- the current leaders are bad, their rivals in the reform movement agree with them on everything that bothers the US and Israel, the Iranian people are naturally and endogenously hostile to US and Israeli regional goals (because those goals are imperialist), and the only way you could take Iran off the threat board is by putting a deeply unpopular government in power and making Iran a client state. And the Iranian people know this and support the regime accordingly, because it's a hell of a lot better than any solution the west proposes.

The idea that democracies are less belligerent is a fallacy. A democratic Iran would be spinning just as many centrifuges as an Islamic Republic. More even.

With regard to the list of all the horrible things Iran has done to the US, yeah it's rough but this is the sort of thing countries do to each other. Some plot against the Saudi ambassador isn't a causus belli any more than the US and Mossad's covert murders of Iranian scientists. And refraining from bombing them isn't "appeasement."

Re:WTF? Obama already tried "goodwill"

[misexistentialist]

So Obama "said he was sorry" while encircling Iran with wars of occupation and restrictive sanctions, as well as continuing to damage Iranian interests with a multitude of covert and political operations. That's only counts as "goodwill" if you assume that USA global dominance is unquestionable.

Re:WTF? Obama already tried "goodwill"

[shutdown -p now]

Continued lethal Iranian assistance to guerrillas killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan

Wouldn't be a problem if there weren't any Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, don't you think?

undoubted Chinese and Russian access to a captured U.S. drone for the copying and countering of its high-tech secrets.

The nerve it takes to write this... so there's a U.S. drone flying over Iran spying at them, they bring it down, and then you accuse them of treating it as war booty?

I have news for you; when Serbia shot down an F-117 during the Kosovo campaign, they also gave Russians access. In fact, right now everyone has access, given that it's in their war museum. Ohnoes!

Maybe you just shouldn't fly your precious secret tech where it can be legitimately shot down?

It's worked great! Let's try appeasement again. Because this time will be different.

"Appeasement" was, in effect, surrendering a sovereign country to the Nazis in hope that they will be satiated with that much. Last I checked, Iran did not invade or threatened to invade any countries. Support for resistance movements elsewhere is a whole different kettle of fish, and not the one that U.S. has any say over, given its own history of supporting anti-communist resistance movements elsewhere (need I remind you of Democratic Republic of Afghanistan?).

West cutting its nose to spite its face

[dataxtream]

The SWIFT system was constructed by the west to manage bank transfers. You can be sure that Iran will alternatives to it - just as Iran has found alternatives to every other sanction the US has imposed ove more that 30 years. So what the west is actually doing is facilitating the deconstruction of a once universal system, and facilitating the construction of an alternative that the west does not control.

Re:War Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a piece about what can happen when you rely on someone to manage a computer system for all of your international banking transactions. I get that there's an enormous political undercurrent to it, but at heart it's a "[group] is being deleted from the [computer system] at the request of [political entity] which will massively hinder their [online activity]. Insert Pirate Bay, political blogger, science blogger, etc.

Besides, the wording is pretty neutral. It's not like it said "The extremely dangerous and paranoid Iranian government is being cut off by the financial world in an attempt to prevent them from continuing to build high-yield nuclear weapons to destroy The World with."

In related news ...

[Qbertino]

Iran, after just yesterday celebrating the aniversary of being 'very extremely close to building the bomb now' for 20 years, now announced that the Iranian gouvernment has ordered to cease all of the countries nuclear operations and research and inmediately focus all resources in building a rating agency.
The rating agency is being constructed in downtown Teheran as we speak and is due to be finished in 8 weeks, when offices will be furnished and the first analysist - fresh graduates from the Abda-alla-hap Business School - will move in. Stockmarkets throughout the western hemisphere plumeted as the news struck and the UN has summoned an emergency security concil meeting for tomorrow morning.
Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinedschad, in a speech this morning, threatened western powers with saying 'we will rate all infidels with B- or lower'. His word could hardly be heard through thousands and thousands of bearded and veiled muslim ultrafanatics cheering in the streets and in parliament. Israeli gouvernment and military officials have declared Defcon 3.

Monday is a good date for Israeli attack

[peter303]

Monday is the Persian New Year, the biggest Iranian holiday. Guard may be lower that day. Also the less fatalities if fewer people working at the nuclear sites.

Take it down a notch sparky

[tacokill]

Cuba wasn't embargoed because it was sponsoring terrorists. It was embargoed because they were in bed with the USSR, a fully communist devoted country at the time. Having the USSR try to place strategic nuclear weapons 90 miles off the coast of the US didn't help. Cuba was a proxy for disagreements between the USA and USSR.

That you think it has anything to do with terrorists is laughable. The policy is only bizarre to you because you clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[TermV]

You don't find it strange that the US is still embargoing Cuba 20 years after the Soviet Union dissolved, or that the US has better relations with all the former USSR countries or even Vietnam?

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[domatic]

The Cuban ex-pat lobby has a lot to do with it as well. The Bacardi family in particular spreads around any loot required to keep the embargo in place. The way election politics work these days, that lobby can't be ignored. Florida Congressmen and Presidential candidates who might not care about Cuba otherwise are made to care.

Re:Take it down a notch sparky

[Troed]

I have to laugh at the people who whine about Cuba's embargo. Cuba is free to trade with every other country on earth.

The US just stopped a Danish national from importing Cuban cigars, from Germany, to Denmark.

“It’s a clear example of the US abusing rules which were implemented to fight terrorism. That the American authorities can stop a completely legal financial transaction between two European countries is an abuse of EU citizens’ rights.”

http://cphpost.dk/news/international/us-snubs-out-legal-cigar-transaction

Did this fact change your mind about anything? Why not?

Just a schema- will have no real effect.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have implemented SWIFT for investment banking ETL- let me preface this by saying most back-office investment banking ETL operations are not standardized and generally a mess. SWIFT is a relatively new standard schema. You will still absolutely be able to get pricing on an Iranian bond from Bloomberg. Money is far more important than poitics in the financial world.

A CUSIP or ISIN is the unique identifier for securities. When you want to know how much your security is trading for or what the options spread looks like, you use that identifier- and a company like Bloomberg or Reuters will send you back the data for a fee. That request/response may be in a SWIFT format- but I can tell as of right now, you certainly don't have to use that. every market data providers format is different, SWIFT is just a relatively recent attempt at a standard.

So really- this will have no effect. Even if Bloomberg where to stop pricing Iranian securities, they're still worth something on an exchange- and some market data provider is going to tell you how much that security is worth. And you'll still be free to trade it.

Iran will never give up their nuclear program

[jsepeta]

No matter how nice or mean we are to Iran has no bearing on the fact that it's in their nation's best interests to wield nuclear weapons as a deterrent vs. US invasion. Obama has done pretty much what Bush was doing - fucking up in the Middle East because he doesn't grasp the very basic concepts of the rights of states to determine their own government. You can't just give someone a Democracy - it must be willfully EARNED. Iran's sovereign right to be a country run by zealous Muslim imams is tragic, but it's still their right to be Holocaust-denying jackasses.

Yes it was Bushes fault

[voss]

Khatami(the closest thing Iran has had to a moderate and the only honestly elected president Iran in the last 40 years) wanted to normalize relations with the US in 2003. Iran hated Al Queda who they view as an enemy and a rival for power. In 2003 iran was willing to do everything the US wanted(including fighting al queda,stopping support of hamas, full cooperation with the IAEA) in exchange for normalized relations and "mutual respect". A detente with the US would have likely strengthened Khatami's power base in Iran.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/us_iran_1roadmap.pdf

Bush wanted iran to capitulate to all US demands first instead of "mutual respect"

The US and UK are to blame for this mess

[jonwil]

If the US and UK hadn't intervened and overthrown the democratically elected government of Iran just because said government decided it was going to kick out the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (one of the ancestors of the modern BP oil company) and take full control over Iranian oil, its likely that Iran would have continued as a democratic constitutional monarchy instead of becoming the strict Muslim state it is today.

Re:The US and UK are to blame for this mess

[TheSync]

its likely that Iran would have continued as a democratic constitutional monarchy instead of becoming the strict Muslim state it is today.

Yeah, because look at all the other liberal muslim democracies in the middle east...oh wait.

I agree that Western intervention has not helped the middle east, but I think you have to ignore cultural realities to imagine stable liberal democracies forming (without significant cultural reform, which takes generations).

It is likely that Iran would have ended up like Egypt: a socialist autocracy that claims to be a democracy. Egypt is shortly to become an islamist autocracy that claims to be a democracy. Which is what Iran is.

If I was Iran

[AdamJS]

I would have a system in place to render their oil useless at a moment's notice. Seems a lot more attainable than a nuke.

Re:How about all the Iranians living abroad?

[WindBourne]

They can not. That is the point of this. The idea is to put enough pressure on this gov. that they collapse. A very nice theory. Sadly, nations like zimbabwae, Iraq, and Libya have shown over and over that other nations will happily cheat.

Re:The same in Arabi Saoudi

[chrb]

You do realise that Jerusalem is considered by Muslims to be a holy city? No, thought not...

Question the whole premise

[GSloop]

...due to its program to develop nuclear weapons

What program? What evidence.

I know many believe that's the case, but there's no conclusive evidence - at least none that isn't the "just trust us wink-wink, our all knowing leaders would never lie to you, and we're perfectly trust-worthy" kind. You know, don't let the problem of actual *evidence* worry your pretty little head. Leave that to the big serious folks. [Who incidentally have financial ties to the military-industrial complex and are hauling home cash by the truck-load.]

Second - they have a right to pursue a nuclear program. [They've signed agreements not to pursue a weapons program.]

So, it seems really crazy to demand that the Iranians prove the impossible. True or not, they will NEVER be able to prove they aren't working on a nuclear weapons program. I mean, sheesh, if Iraq couldn't prove there was no WMD program when there really WAS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER that they were, how could Iran hope for any better?

Proving a negative is always a losing battle...
[You know why Elephants paint their toenails red, don't you? Because they can hide in Cherry trees! You've never seen one, have you? See, it works!]

What Iran is really doing, I'm not sure. But I don't think anyone else is SURE either. So, we simply have to live with not knowing for sure.

Finally, I'm really not sure what gives the rest of the world the right to demand that a sovereign country stop doing developing any nuclear program.
It's OK if the west, or our friends do it, but you're EEEEVVVIIILL brown skinned muslims, so everyone must be *very* afraid!

I'm sure it won't be a good thing, but frankly, ANYONE having nuclear weapons is a bad thing. But it's kind of hard to ask "them" to give up the opportunity when you and all your friends have so thoroughly enjoyed it yourselves.

 

just to clarify

[nimbius]

"international sanctions against Iran due to its program to develop nuclear weapons."

always remember: the united states, nor the UN, nor the IAEA have any proof at all that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. its subtle changes in the wording that will inevitably lead us all to conclude this is the case however.