did iran violate the NPT while i wasn't paying attention? or is this the same BS we've been hearing from the bush administration for 5 years?

and if "Sanctions won’t resolve this issue on their own," what else do you suggest, that we negotiate with iran? good luck getting bush to buy that one - he won't even do it to help pull our nuts out of the fire in iraq. military action? that idea is just retarded enough to be adopted by this administration. i can't imagine such a neanderthal position would get a headline at a progressive blog, so i'll assume you favor the former, never-gonna-happen scenario.

Bruce, I don't pretend to be an expert on anything, but, it's my understanding that in the modern era (post-WWII) sanctions have a rather dismal record of either being effective or modifying behavior. Nation states have a way of drawing on native talents to overcome sanctions and sanctions seem to draw willing suppliers like flies to honey.

Sanctions strike me as a version of gunboat diplomacy without the guns; at best, a toothless coercive measure of symbolic value only.

Assume the worst case. Iran develops an arsenal of hydrogen bombs with means to deliver them worldwide. Do you seriously think they would be foolish enough to preempt, given the U.S. nuclear capability?

In the Soviet Union, we confronted a truly dangerous empire run by drunks and survived for 50 years. Strikes me we're well suited to live another 50 without undue concern about Iran.

We might be better served by expending our efforts on developing more credible strategies for dealing with potentially hostile states.

Mr. Jentleson, I understand your point about the UN's credibility but I wonder if you cannot take us through the reasoning that you clearly agree with concerning the danger of the Iranian enriched nuclear fuel program (even accepting that the Iranian goal might well be nuclear weapons). Of course I understand that it is better that Iran not have nuclear weapons. I hope we all agree it would be better if the US, Russia, Britain, China, France, North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel not have nuclear weapons also. I believe that. Do you? The reason I ask these naive questions is that I do not understand the UNIQUE and SINGULAR threat Iran poses and why you think it is so worrisome. I think of myself as very cynical; but in this discussion I feel like I am asking questions that only the wise men and grown-ups know the answers to. Why is Iran so worrisome? More so than the other countries; more so than Russia and China at the height of the Cold War? You have spent a lifetime studying security questions. Could you please explain it slowly and clearly so even I can understand? (I am not stupid on other matters. i can understand carefully reasoned arguments). This is a serious, not sarcastic, request. Just running on a little longer...while I am not crazy about some of the rhetoric coming out of the Iranian leaders, and the theocrats are, well, theocrats, and therfore distasteful, ignorant and inhumane, nevertheless Iran since the revolution has not militarily attacked any of its neighbors (although we helped foment Saddam's attack on Iran (using chemical weapons (WMDs)) and gave his forces surveillance information during this war...capping off our long intervention in Iran stemming from the overthrow of Mossadegh in 54. So where in your opinion does the view that Iran is such a threat have its support and evidence?

Iran "failed to report" some activities and the importation of uranium. That's a technical breach of their safeguards but not an NPT violation (which means diversion of nuclear material for non-peaceful uses)

Lots of countries have had technical breaches of safeguards, and a few US-allies have even been caught conducting secret nuclear experiments that were much scarier than Iran's - such as S. Korea, Taiwan and Egypt. No one has suggested that they should simply give up all nuclear energy as a result, and they weren't dragged before the UNSC.

Note that Iran resorted to secrecy after its repeated attempts to acquire the technology to which it was entitled were thwarted by the US, which pressured the IAEA and other countries to drop any nuclear energy cooperation with Iran - even though these were perfectly legal and above-board. That's when Iran went to Pakistan to acquire centrifuges. However, Iran never made a secret out of its ambitions to enrich uranium and had openly announced the discovery of uranium and then even invited IAEA inspectors to visit Iran's uranium mines. And to this day, and despite all the innuendo and intentionally vague reference to Iran's "nuclear ambitions" (which conveniently conflates a perfectly legal energy program with a hypothetical weapons program) no weapons program has been found in Iran, and the IAEA reported that previously undisclosed activities were not weapons-related.

Iran has reportedly been "just 3 years" away from building nukes for 25 years.
In fact, the US does not actually argue that Iran IS building nuclear weapons, rather the US argues that Iran is seekng the technology which COULD ONE DAY allow it to build bombs - this of course is a ridiculous claim since any country "COULD" one day use technology to build WMDs. That's one of the many nuances that's covered up with the booga-booga talk.

The problem with sanctions is: they hurt civilians more than they do elites and, in my mind, sanctions make it obvious that civil discourse, among elites, has broken down.

I'll never forget the day when Madeline Albright didn't wink an eyelid when she noted that "500,000 deaths are a worthwhile price" when referring to the number of children who died because of US led sanctions.

Hitler is smiling in his grave.

Look, I would probably support sanctions if this were a Democratic administration and the US was clearly committed to using the Security Counsel to manage international affairs. You would have to be crazy, however, to support any US-led sanctions against Iran while the White House policy is and continues to be "real men go to Tehran." 

What is the next step after sanctions, Bruce?  An invasion.  What is the Cheney policy towards Iran?  Regime change.  By advocating for sanctions, you are tossing a softball over the plate for Cheney.  Sanctions are the key, intermediate step that makes an invasion possible.  Please don't tell me they are not crazy enough to invade Iran.  They are that crazy.  And they've been telling us they want to invade Iran for years.

Were you around in 2002, Bruce?  This isn't a new thing.  Remember phrases like "we have exhausted all diplomatic options"?  That is what you say after sanctions have failed and the only option left is "military force."

It is brutally, blatantly obvious that the US only gained the support to invade Iraq from its Sunni Arab allies by promising: after Baghdad, Tehran and Damascus are next in line for regime change. Not only did the neocons repeat this over and over again, and not only was "real men go to Tehran" the slogan in the White House during the lead up to the Iraq war, but it is the only reasonable explanation for why our Sunni allies haven't been shrieking about a Shiite-led government in Baghdad for the last three years.  How else would it make sense for the US to strengthen Iran and Syria by placing a Shiite government in Baghdad?  Why would the Saudis, Egyptians, and Israelis sit silently by as the US helped Iran and Syria in this way?  Do we think the neocons were joking when they said Iran was next?  Logic, Bruce.  Use logic.  They said Iran was next and they meant it.  The only way a Shiite government in Iraq is anything but a disaster for the Middle East is if Iran and Syria experience regime change.  There is no other explanation.

The plan was obvious.  The neocons would place a Western-friendly Shiite government in Baghdad, then topple the regimes in Tehran and Damascus.  Our Sunni allies would be rid of their "Shiite problem," Israel would face a much friendlier Iran (and a much diminished Hezbollah), and the US would have new friends throughout the Middle East.  This was the plan.  It was good for everyone.  It sounded pretty damn fantastic in 2002.  Winners all around.  Anyone who doesn't see it...well, they weren't listening to the neocons. 

(Incidentally, the best way to read Baker's ISG report is this: our Sunni Arab allies no longer believe the US can topple Tehran and Damascus -- and are thus very concerned with the US plan to install a Shiite government in Iraq.  They know that a Shiite government in Bahgdad is a disaster for their interests if Tehran and Damascus are not next.  Hence, the report's Sunni-friendly recommendations.)

So, with all this in mind, UN sanctions against Iran would be a disaster.  Why?  Because the Bush Administration is still sticking with its plan to install a Shiite government in Baghdad.   They are not giving into the Saudi demands, as described in the ISG report.  This means they must still have their eye on Tehran.  How do we know?  Because the alternative would mean that the US is actively stregthening Iran's hand by giving it a Shiite partner in Iraq.  This would be idiocy.  The neocons might be crazy, but they are not going to help Iran so blatantly. 

Maybe I'm being a little too coy.  So let me just say it:

UN sanctions would give the Administration the pretext it needs to invade Iran.  With sanctions in place, the next logical step is invasion.   We all know that sanctions don't work.  Just as we know that sanctions against Iran would not work.  Once the sanctions fail, the only thing left is the use of military force.

Do not support sanctions against Iran unless you support the Bush Administration using military force against Iran.  Is that clear enough?

I will finish by saying this: what makes the Bush Administration so good at this game is how they make invasion seem like the only reasonable outcome.  They aren't going to just up and invade Iran.  They will get sanctions through the Security Counsel.  They will ensure Iran violates these resolutions.  They will then illustrate how useless sanctions are, since Iran is blatantly disobeying the Security Counsel.  They will then cook the intelligence to make it look like Iran is up to all kinds of other bad stuff.  By the time they are done, an invasion will seem reasonable to enough people to make it appear anything but "crazy."

Sanctions are a very important intermediate step in this process.  They are the veil of legitimacy the Administration needs to enable an attack.

Probably the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are less enthusiastic about the US possession of nuclear weapons and how it is a boon to the rest of the world. I guess from your point of view the best of all possible worlds would be if the US had a monopoly on nuclear weapons (the US having demonstrated time and again that force is a last resort to sorting out problems); my view is that the best would be if no nation had nuclear weapons.

For all the hardboiled realists out there, you can always go with: sanctions don't work.

One word: Cuba.

Sanctions strengthen dictators by weakening the middle class...and any other opposition groups that might resist that dictator. They give the dictator an enemy to blame for all the people's problems. They cut off opposition forces from outside help and insulate the dictator from outside criticism. When have they ever worked?

The only real purpose for sanctions is as an intermediate step between talk and military force.  It is a way to say that "all dimplomatic efforts have been exhausted."  They are a placeholder, after which the next step is bombs.  Once "sanctions fail," it is okay to invade.

One poet said (not in English) "they see, but they see everything separatedly".

Is it important that Iran has no uranium enriching capability? How important? What are we ready to give up --- to Russia, to China, or more straighforwardly, to Iran --- to achieve it? If nothing, then is it REALLY important to _u_s_?

I say that we are not serious, so complaining that Russia and China are not is preposterous.

Comming next: other countries, gasp, have priorities based on their national interest, totally unlike USA. We do not even have the concept of national interest; to see the proof, check the American journal "National Interest": totally clueless! [Sorry folks at "National Interest": the claim is ironic, so not actually insulting at your expense.]

The civilians of Hirshima and Nagasaki undoubtly not enthusiastic but the million or so American soldiers that would have invaded Japan probably were.

However, I simply believe it is naive to believe that getting rid of nuclear weapons in of itself is a good thing. If the world reverts to a prenuclear weapon standard there will be a lot more wars.

As an illustration is India and Pakistan. The thinking is that if they go to war over Kashmir India will quickly overwhelm Pakistan's military. Pakistan will have two choices accept defeat or use their nuclear weapons. To avoid absorbing a first strike India might use their nuclear weapons first. According to the Financial Times such a war was a very real possiblity. Only Powell and Jack Straws efforts stopped a war.

If there were no nuclear weapons on the Indian Sub-continent might a conventional war that would kill millions been even more likely?

Daniel A. Greenbaum