The Iranian government has no sense of guilt whatsoever about repressing its people. On the contrary, it’s system of government virtually requires suppression of popular opinion and democratic desires, being founded in clerical “guardianship”, which treats all citizens, of whatever race, as mere children who aren’t capable of deciding for themselves what government policies to follow. Sanctions would merely increase the determination of the government to resist any interference with its guardianship of the people. It would also weaken the position of the bourgeouis middle class and the powerful economic elites such as Rasfanjani, which is really the only place that real reform will come from and by supported by. The clerics would certainly listen to them and possibly be persuaded to liberalize, but not if economic sanctions were in place, because then the middle classes and the economic elites would collapse and lose power and influence. In fact, a better argument would be that by aiding Iran economically, we would be guaranteeing the long-term liberalization of the country. Not that this would be politically feasible, of course, but certainly sanctions are the wrong direction to take.

Of course, the answer to Chris’s question is “reciprocity”. In many cases theoretical and otherwise, eliminating a single asshole can do a world of good, at comparably lower cost and widespread pain than the massive interventionist alternatives. But that would put those who made the decision in a precarious position themselves. The Rules of the Game are stacked so that the political elite of any faction rarely get hurt. It’s a nice Gentleman’s Agreement that insulates the powerful from the consequences of their decisions, and allows them to use their vast civilian populations as proxies for their dirty work. Why should they just start offing each-other like mafia dons, that would be…too responsible.

Have a problem with a foreign madman? Don’t whack him, that’s uncivilized! Blockade his country and punish his helpless subjects instead–makes perfect sense to a Serious Person.

Readers will note that you somehow seemed to rehabilitate S. African regime as it was not quite that bad as the current Iranian regime. That is both scary and shockingly ignorant and is further evidence to my point above.

Now that you’ve mostly climbed down from your position on the efficacy of past sanctions, your only defense against said sanctions seems to be that they won’t be popular, which really isn’t the same as saying they wouldn’t work.

What would make large OECD economies with diversified economies agree to sanctions? Simple – voter preference. Many powerful OECD leaders are currently vulnerable (ie: Brown, Harper, Berlusconi) and are in need of a win with voters.

I previously noted that the Italians do a large amount of business in Iran, and you will note that the Italians were one of the first to open their embassy doors to the demonstrators, seemingly flying in the face of your thesis that there is a lack of will amongst the allies to take on Iran because of monetary concerns.

A consensus amongst the G7/OECD, or even just the EU could be extremely powerful if concentrated in the right way (ie: targeted sanctions, not blanket sanctions per Iraq). And of course, you would be advised not to state that sanctions=starvation for the poor. Obviously, that would not occur unless the US was somehow put in charge of this operation and once again mangled an international engagement in the ME.

You can now return to screaming behind the walls of the echo chamber, where you can get away with stating “sanctions never work!”….As you were…

“I don’t know about you, but it seems like the EU and close US alliles (Japan/S.Korea) are a key component to Iran’s economic health.”

Does anyone think for a minute that any of them would be willing to sacrifice all the business they do with Iran, especially in the middle of a major recession? No, neither do I, and there’s no reason why they would. They knew what kind of government Iran had when they got into business with them, and that didn’t seem to bother them back then.

Your ignorance of history does not mean that these methods do not work. Just because sanctions do not always have the desired result (ie: Iraq) does not mean they never work.

North Korea has waivered multiple times in response to threatened or actual sanctions.

South Africa eventually caved due to direct pressure from sanctions.

The South African example is so obvious that it casts serious doubt as to your basic awareness/knowledge of history.

Of course if you wanted to say that S. Africa was “democratic” during apartheid, it was about as “democratic” as Tehran has been.

Iran is fairly developed country, and it is not necessary to starve the people to make an impact (I’m sure a Chinese ban on purchasing US debt would not make Americans starve, but it would hurt the US a great deal).

As for the efficacy of sanctions, see your CIA Factbook
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/IR.html

Exports – partners:
China 15%, Japan 14.3%, Turkey 7.4%, South Korea 7.3%, Italy 6.4% (2007)

Imports – partners:
China 14.2%, Germany 9.6%, UAE 9.1%, South Korea 6.3%, Russia 5.7%, Italy 5% (2007

I don’t know about you, but it seems like the EU and close US alliles (Japan/S.Korea) are a key component to Iran’s economic health.

*********************’
I guess this all means we can expect your blog to be heavily in favour of repealing sanctions/the embargo against Cuba. Right?

Just don’t hurt your head too much worrying about the obvious internal contradictions of the American Conservative “movement”(ie: wanting to bomb the hell out of Iran one moment, and then worrying about wanting the best for its inhabitants).

As it happens, Iran’s chief export is an item everyone else wants. China would never – never – get on board such an embargo. So it is all just a wild fantasy.

Besides, the effect on my caviar budget would be devastating.

I’m sure we could take an even more absurd look back stepping through history, how each step of the way Daniel warns us of vanity, all being vanity, to assume there ever is any change.

Simply flux. Flux presumable less permanent than any gastral purge.

Excuse me, I must go nick and scrape oxidized rock face – I’ll blow red paint about my hand and then realize the futility of such individual action – then I’ll go back to simple flaking rock and in rare case bone.

Not everything is majestic tectonic motion, Dr Larison. Sometimes equilibrium is punctuated. In fact in human affairs that is always the case.

Yes, exactly. I cannot think of a single case in which sanctions have accomplished what the sanctioners desire.

I do think that there is, in the future, a possibility for real change in Iran. It is clear that there are many people there who do not believe in the current corrupt practices. I’m also quite certain that the people who seek change are likely to be crushed this time, which is saddening. That said, responding to the impending (likely) defeat by destroying the economy and impoverishing the people of Iran and increasing their isolation from the world only succeed in radicalizing those who support the mullahs and weakening the opposition, which is rooted in the educated and technologically-savvy parts of Iranian society. Hard to send tweets when you can’t afford a phone or a computer.