The measure would attempt to block companies across the world from doing business with Iran in importing gasoline and other vital goods Iran does not produce domestically, a move with has been designed to “cripple” Iran’s economy in retaliation for refusing to abandon its civilian nuclear program…
I love how politicians seem to think that if they legislate something, good results will just come falling out of heaven. I’m still expecting them to someday outlaw gravity.
“I know no one else is going to agree with me on this, but I’m glad to see them finally trying to do something about Iran.”
I do disagree with you on other grounds but, even from a utilitarian point of view this is worthless. Actually worse than worthless it is counterproductive. As someone else above pointed out these measures never work. They almost exclusively affect the poorer population and do nothing to the state apparatus except give them an effective talking point against the US to rally support and deflect attention for their failures away from themselves. This has never worked and it never will and that should be “common sense” by now.
if anything it’s free and open trade that rids the world of places like this; the free movement of goods (and ideas can and do accompany goods IMHO) eventually forces the state to relax certain controls.
btw, they’re not trying to overthrow Iran’s system of government with this, they’re doing this to try and get Iran to back off their development of nuclear materials.
"The measure would attempt to block companies across the world from doing business with Iran in importing gasoline and other vital goods Iran does not produce domestically, a move with has been designed to “cripple” Iran’s economy in retaliation for refusing to abandon its civilian nuclear program. "
The US has boycotted Iran for over thirty years now. They have applied pressures to their “allies” to do the same. Despite this, European, Japanese and Korean companies have all regularly traded with Iran. Uncle Sam used to turn a blind eye if no weapon deals were involved. Now the music is changing.
Last year French oil company Total (formerly Elf-Aquitaine) left Iran, traditionally one of their best partners. Their concessions were picked up by CNPC (China National Petroleum Company): the Chinese got a killer deal from the Iranian government. Since no reasons were given for this move it’s much likely President Sarzozy’s vehemently pro US and Israeli politics had an hand in it. With fuel prices skyrocketing in Europe it wasn’t a very smart decision but when politics have ever been “smart”? European companies are slowly but steadily abandoning Iran: since Iran is traditionally a good trading partner one is left to think that they have pressured (and possibly blackmailed/bribed) by their home governments. Chinese are quickly moving in to replace the Europeans: despite what the media are saying China and Iran aren’t all chummy. Iranians have a deep distrust of East Asian peoples and China’s ambiguous stance on Iran isn’t helping.
As Bastiat rightly remarked when goods aren’t crossing borders, armies will.
Well, in bloom’s defense, would any of us argue that Iran more closely embodies our ideals as compared to the US? I would think not. There is plenty wrong with Iran. My difference with bloom is that I don’t believe statist intervention on the US part will in any way shape or form make the situation better, and actually has a high probability of making the situation worse.
Do you mean morally wrong? If so, I don’t think morality has anything to do with this.
Israel and the US are allies. Iran is a potential enemy of Israel and also the US and it looks like they might be building nukes. This could be a serious problem. The US is trying to deal with it.
Do you mean morally wrong? If so, I don’t think morality has anything to do with this.
Israel and the US are allies. Iran is a potential enemy of Israel and also the US and it looks like they might be building nukes. This could be a serious problem. The US is trying to deal with it.
Has nothing to do with morality. I’m not sure why our Congress think’s that (in whoever’s interest) blocking the transfer of goods is productive. Israel may be our government’s ally, but I have no interest in Israel and would be very pleased if we ceased from doing their dirty work. Also, I don’t see why country’s X and Y, who have nuclear weaponry, want to block Z from having it.
If the United States want’s to “deal” with this “problem”, they can first start by not getting entangled in Israel’s b/s and start disarming our own nuclear weapons.
@Bert, the reason is that there’s good reason to believe that Iran might use a nuclear weapon on Israel or hand it off to some terrorist organization that could potentially use it here or elsewhere. In short, a nuclear Iran is a security risk.
I have a great deal of interest in Israel and I’m glad that the US is trying to do something to prevent a Nuclear Iran from happening.
The security risk is exaggerated. Iran is doing nothing wrong (nothing that we haven’t done, at least).
From previous post of yours I know your interest in Israel is more of a “nationalist” interest. I understand your interest, but as a whole for everyone else, governments restricting the flow of goods through people’s own voluntary association is counter productive.
Agreed, but if it gets Iran to reconsider their nuclear program it will be worth it to me. Probably not to you though.
If all it does is make them angrier and push them faster towards developing nukes then it will have been a total waste and mistake and the US will have to consider more drastic measures.
The measure would attempt to block companies across the world from doing business with Iran in importing gasoline and other vital goods Iran does not produce domestically, a move with has been designed to “cripple” Iran’s economy in retaliation for refusing to abandon its civilian nuclear program…