Putting economic pressure on Iran will not cause its leadership to reverse course, but it can convince the majority of lower class Iranians that the regime is more concerned about its own power than it is about the average Iranian's welfare.
Last week President Obama promised strict and biting sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran for its continued refusal to curtail its nuclear program or even to enter serious negotiations. Such sanctions, and even embargoes, will not cause Iran's current government of Supreme Leader Ali Khamene'i and his chosen representative, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to reverse course and terminate the nuclear program. In truth, nothing will convince the present Iranian regime to retreat on its mad rush to become a nuclear power. Khamene'i and his coterie of Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) supporters regard the nuclear card as their one ace-in-the-hole that will keep them in power and in control of Iran. For Khamene'i, Ahmadinejad, and the IRGC, giving up the nuclear card is tantamount to surrendering to the ever mounting opposition to their corrupt rule. Hell will freeze over five times before this cabal will stop seeking nuclear arms.
So, if sanctions and even embargoes will not stop the mad mullahs, what's to be done? Is all-out war the only option left? Is the nuclear clock about to strike midnight?
Sanctions and embargoes still have an important role to play, but we must understand what that role is. Putting economic pressure on Iran will not cause its leadership to reverse course, but it can convince the majority of lower class Iranians — who until now have not opposed the regime — that this regime is more concerned about its own power than it is about the average Iranian's welfare.
The presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been a deep disappointment to most Iranians. Candidate Ahmadinejad promised in 2005 that he would introduce economic reforms and he was swept to power on an anti-corruption platform that basically promised "a chicken in ever Persian pot in the country." Four years later it was clear to all that reforms hadn't occurred and that the economy had worsened considerably, due in large measure to the huge sums spent financing Iran's terror proxies abroad (Hezbollah, Hizballah-Iraq, Hamas, al-Qaeda-AP [in the Arabian Peninsula], Islamic Jihad) as well as the huge sums spent on the nuclear and missile programs.
Tired of being fleeced, the Iranian electorate voted for a change last year. Iranians discovered just how corrupt their government had become when Ahmadinejad was declared the winner by a two-thirds majority the day after the elections, when not all of the votes had been counted! As the actual vote had been a two-thirds majority for Mir Hussein Mousavi, the Green Revolution began to gather steam as more and more Iranians began to question the legitimacy of their government. When Khamene'i — who until then as Supreme Leader was viewed as above the fray — sided with Ahmadinejad, the populous turned against the regime.
As if the current government wasn't unpopular enough, it recently decided to end the economic subsidies program that has been in place for thirty years — subsidies in everything from gasoline to the price of chicken, eggs, and bread. For the lower classes, the loss of the subsidies will prove exceedingly painful. Inflation last year was 28%; without the subsidies, basic food stuffs may see triple digit inflation. With about 25% of the population unemployed, and most of that group under 30 years of age, the Persian pot is bubbling, to say the least.
Sanctions and embargoes — of everything other than food and medicine — would ratchet up the pressure to the point that the Iranian in the street will say: "Enough of this corrupt regime." Already the street demonstrations have been ringing for nearly nine months with the chant: "Na ghazeh na lobnan janam fadai iran" — "Neither Gaza nor Lebanon is our business; no to Gaza and no to Lebanon. Iran is our business, and I give my life for that!" — indicating the popular displeasure with the Iranian regime's support of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Hizballah-Iraq.
It is important to realize that the economic pressure of sanctions and embargoes have their place in our war with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and make no mistake, we are engaged in a war which this Iranian regime began with us in 1979. Economic war affects the lower classes before it does the privileged of the regime; that is regrettable. But if our economic war is accompanied with a campaign to support the Green Revolution in the same manner that we supported the color revolutions in Poland and the rest of eastern Europe, the Iranian people will know that we ultimately seek their freedom, and they will respond positively.
There is one additional thing that President Barack H. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton can do if they really want to get Tehran's attention: they can follow the lead of the United Kingdom and the European Union and remove the false, politically-motivated "terrorist" label from the leading Iranian opposition movement — the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI). Not only will Tehran finally take us seriously, but the Iranian people will realize that we really are on their side against the mullahs and the IRGC.
It's important to realize what sanctions can and cannot do. Now it's time to use them to bring down the corrupt regime of Khamene'i, Ahmadinejad, and their IRGC thug supporters with the help of the Iranian people itself.
Nur azadi mi-ayad, Inshallah! (Farsi: By the grace of God, the light of freedom is coming!)







































Daniel,
In your essay you point out that; “Tired of being fleeced, the Iranian electorate voted for a change last year.”So, how’d that all work out for them huh? We all sat in our living rooms, and the Obama administration sat on their hands, while we viewed smuggled video footage of Iranian Security Forces beating the stuffing out of anyone who dared take to the streets to protest the obviously rigged results. Protesters were beaten, arrested, tried, and executed while our Commander-in-Chief watched and ‘tut-tutted’ about inhumane treatment from the sidelines.
Iranians questioning the legitimacy of their government were once again beaten to a pulp during last week’s demonstrations marking the anniversary of the original Islamic takeover of the country. Making life even more difficult for the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad through additional sanctions will only invite further crackdowns. As long as the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad are ensured that no one will intervene, they will keep attempting to beat the opposition into submission, if not extinction.
I believe our choices here to be exactly none. Either the current administration has to commit to a concerted effort to overthrow those in power, or pre-emptively strike the country. Lot’sa luck getting the current crop of panty-waists in this administration to back either course of action.
Ultimately it will be left to the Israelis to do the heavy lifting here, as they cannot allow a regime that has actively spoken of their ‘extinction’ on many occasions to make good on the threat. It’s just a matter of whether the Obama administration will back Israel’s play, or throw them under the bus as well in an effort to once again take a conciliatory stance toward a terrorist state.
C’mon man! What makes anyone believe for one minute that Barack Obama and company can stand up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? For God’s sake, they can’t even shed their fear long enough to talk to Fox News! And we’re supposed to believe that these same people can handle a terrorist like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Puleezzse!
Let’s review some recent history in conjunction with this author’s ruminations. North Korea is certainly “nuclear” and is working on a delivery system to alarm the Japanese prior to applying a little diplomatic extortion. Iran has gone nuclear, already awash in a sea of oil, developing an alternative energy source is necessary for Iran – right? Maybe, but despite our government’s previous assurance that Iran is pursuing peaceful intentions in developing a nuclear capability, just as North Korea was pursuing those same “peaceful” goals during Bill Clinton’s presidency, it’s now time to worry over Iran’s military intentions once they possess their own nuclear weapons – at least the Israelis believe so and they’re a lot closer to the action.
In the meantime, we fight a conventional ground war in Afghanistan, continuing our Vietnam style conflict with the Taliban. Since 2001, we’ve been fighting in Afghanistan, fighting the same enemy, we’re not losing but we’re not winning either. We mount this or that campaign, send in more troops, continue our attempt at discovering a successful “doctrine” for asymmetrical warfare. The average American voter can’t describe the specifics of what constitutes winning the Afghan war. Defeat the Taliban – exactly how are we doing that – what defines “victory”?
We haven’t stopped additional nations from entering the nuclear club. We aren’t able to definitively win so-called “wars” against lightly armed guerrillas. Given our track record, embargoes and sanctions appear to be just another futile gesture rooted in desperation.
America’s goals and dreams of a new world order are admirable, it’s our means that are weak. We believe we have a duty to spread the beacon of democracy and individual rights to those nations which lack them. But aren’t we kidding ourselves, desperately clinging to an outworn vision of America as the only Global Superpower?
What the future holds is a series of conflicts between the emerging Asian Superpowers. Our time on the world stage is rapidly passing into history, the signs and portents are there for the reading. Are we making the world safer for individual Americans with our constant but impotent efforts aimed at barricading the city gates against the barbarian hordes – or are we just navel gazing? We don’t know where the world is going, we only know where we’ve been and that doesn’t provide a rational basis for confidence.
If Asian and Middle Eastern nations turn their attention toward dominating their neighbors, Israel may end up as collateral damage, not a pleasant thought, but one we should prepare ourselves for. As this or that country demands we enter the fray on their side, is that strategically wise or just ivory tower statesmanship? What contribution will Europe make toward peace? Can socialist nations re-discover the will to fight or are they content to simply urge us on toward victory?
A translation of the English words “doing the same things over and over but expecting different results” into Farsi, the language of the ancient Persians, doesn’t come to mind so I can’t end this comment with a pedantic flourish. But then the mighty empire of ancient Persia had its time in the sun and is no more. Maybe we should take the hint.
We should get used to a nuclear Iran, as we are with nuclear Pakistan, India and undercovered Israel.