Senate approves more sanctions against Iran
Today the US Senate passed a bill which will impose economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran. The plan is to “target companies that export gasoline to Iran or help expand the country’s oil-refining capacity by, in part, denying them loans and other assistance from U.S. financial institutions.”
I argued in a post I wrote last year for my blog that this is collective punishment, and is therefore immoral and shouldn’t be done. Despite our leaders’ hearts constantly weeping for the Iranian populace — “‘The situation in Iran is terrible and it’s worsening. People are dying in Iran as we speak,’ said Senator John McCain just before the Senate [sanctions] vote” — sanctions lower the standard of living for all Iranian civilians.
The counterargument is that the ends justify the means; not a very Kantian ethical argument, but an argument nonetheless. Well, in that case, shouldn’t we use the same means to pressure Israel to abandon its occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights in Syria, and its aggressive stance towards Lebanon? Proponents of sanctions and even military action against Iran feel that an Iranian nukes program is a threat to world peace. I respond, what world peace? The reason that peace with the Arab world is not achievable right now is that the aforementioned territories plus Iraq and Afghanistan are all currently occupied by Western militaries. The Arab stance is, “no justice, no peace.” My claim is that Israeli aggression in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon is currently blocking peace, while Iranian nuclear weapons are not yet a reality. (Of course, our own War on Terror is also making world peace — tautologically — impossible. If only we could impose sanctions on the United States!)
So which should be a US priority? That’s easy. If our concern is our continued domination of the Middle East, we should prioritize the neutralization of Iran’s nuclear program — all the while framing our actions as “protecting world peace.” In reality, we are protecting our own immoral regional project which is threatened by an Iran willing to put nuclear money where its Holocaust-denying mouth is. But these sorts of punitive actions will likely just entrench Iran’s theocracy more, and probably increase public support there for nukes to boot. And round, round, round we go.
Latest posts by Calvin Pollak (Posts)
- Against libertarian exceptionalism - September 14, 2010
- 9/11/01 was the opposite of a sobering moment - September 11, 2010
- Does internet freedom = political freedom? - March 12, 2010
- One dude’s foreign policy views vis à vis his libertarian moral code - February 12, 2010
- Senate approves more sanctions against Iran - January 29, 2010
Print This Post
I sort of enjoy reading your parallel reality posts in which all of the world’s problems are caused by the wicked USA and its sinister proxy Israel. I do enjoy the naivete with which you take the Arab world’s protestations at face value while seeing shady double meanings in everything the ‘American Imperium’ does.
You are a particularly fine case of cognitive egocentrism. Congrats.
Ad hominems and sarcasm are so easy, Bob. Blog commenter cliches, even. Why don’t you attack the argument rather than the arguer? Maybe because you aren’t informed or clever enough to do so. But don’t worry, bro. You’ll always be sexy.
Calvin, it does seem to me that you have made Israel and America’s support of Israel the sole factor in all that is wrong in the Middle East.
Is it not possible that the Iranian regime bears a the responsibility for its own actions which have led it to be sanctioned?
I did attack the argument, Calvin, although it was difficult because it is really naive and difficult to engage with. I pointed out that you seem to think America and Israel are responsible for all the ills in the ME, and thus are proposing the entirely absurd position that if we just left well enough alone, then it would all settle down. Which is nonsense, and you must know little of the region’s history of sustained violence over many millennia if you believe that. I suggest you visit Michael Totten’s website for a nuanced point of view from somebody has spent a lot of time there.
I didn’t even get into Muslim on Muslim violence which far exceeds anything done by Israel/America, and yet which you don’t mention. Or the long standing conflict between Arabs and Persians, Sunni and Shia. I don’t know, maybe Muslims only kill Muslims because they’re unhappy about the US/Israel. Or something like that. Nothing to do with their own internal politics and religious/cultural disputes which have existed for 1400+ years.
And as Rob points out, and I also pointed out, your argument implies that the Arab/Persian world is incapable of autonomous agency and can only react to the terrible things done to them by the US and Israel, the latter of which is guilty of some weird metaphysical ‘aggression’ apparently for its own sake, or maybe because the US put them up to it for control of oil and whatnot. Or something like that. It certainly can’t have anything to do with Hamas or Hizbollah because they’re not capable of autonomous agency but can only react to the evils done to them by the US/Israel apparently. Have you read the Hamas charter, by the way? It’s quite an eye popper.
And I love your sympathy for Assad. It’s great. He’s an Alawite by the way, not recognized as a Muslim by most of the people he governs as a hereditary tyrant. They think he’s a heretic and he holds power because- yes, he’s a tyrant with a secret police force and powerful military!
Oh and by the way, do tell me what happened to all the Palestinians living in Syria in 1982, and who did it to them. Won’t take long for a quick Google search.
And I wonder whose fault that was? Can’t possibly have been the Syrians.
I’ll address this bit first, because it is the least relevant to the claims I made in this post and involves the most flagrant misinterpretation of my claims:
“And I love your sympathy for Assad. It’s great. He’s an Alawite by the way, not recognized as a Muslim by most of the people he governs as a hereditary tyrant. They think he’s a heretic and he holds power because- yes, he’s a tyrant with a secret police force and powerful military!
Oh and by the way, do tell me what happened to all the Palestinians living in Syria in 1982, and who did it to them. Won’t take long for a quick Google search.
And I wonder whose fault that was? Can’t possibly have been the Syrians.”
When did I offer any sympathy for Assad? My post involving Syria (for those interested, it’s here) was actually predominantly a critique of the phrase “Islamic extremism” and “Islamic terrorism”, and of the widely held notion in the West that Islam is the predominant factor in the radicalization of terrorists. I used the statements of the leading Muslim in Syria as the basis for that argument; the implied conclusion was that governments (Israel’s, Syria’s, and the US’ each in their own ways), not religion, are the true reason that Syria is so unfree and is therefore an enemy of the West. Nowhere did I say that the Syrian *government* is blameless, or that it is good to its people. I think that many governments in the Middle East are tyrannical and do horrible evil to their own people — including Iran’s, of course, but I still don’t think sanctions against Iran are morally justifiable. Please see this post for more on why I feel that way.
(Another ME country led by a tyrant is Egypt, but Israel doesn’t have much of a problem with that particular tyrant because he helps control the “Palestinian issue”, as it is often referred to by Israeli figureheads.)
“I did attack the argument, Calvin, although it was difficult because it is really naive and difficult to engage with. I pointed out that you seem to think America and Israel are responsible for all the ills in the ME, and thus are proposing the entirely absurd position that if we just left well enough alone, then it would all settle down. Which is nonsense, and you must know little of the region’s history of sustained violence over many millennia if you believe that. I suggest you visit Michael Totten’s website for a nuanced point of view from somebody has spent a lot of time there.”
Again you are distorting my arguments. I have never said that it would all settle down if we left. But I maintain that our presence — and imperial presence more generally, throughout the last few centuries — has played a massive role in the reason that things are so crazy there currently. In my opinion it’s so easy to just throw up one’s hands and say “the Middle East has been violent for centuries, there’s just no solving it!” I know that there are deep divisions within Islamic, Arabic, and Persian populations there. But let’s not forget that there have been deep divisions among Christian and Jewish populations in the past also. In my opinion we have to trust in human reason to prevail. It’s illegal and immoral for outside powers to keep the Middle East in a headlock, regardless of whether things will settle down immediately if we release our hold. I’ll say it again: I have never said that would happen. I don’t pretend to know the future. I do, however, respect the past, and history has shown that revolutions never occur from without, only from within. That’s why I argue so passionately for giving up sovereignty to the Palestinians, the Iraqis, and the Afghanis. And that extends from the convictions I hold about individual freedoms.
“And as Rob points out, and I also pointed out, your argument implies that the Arab/Persian world is incapable of autonomous agency and can only react to the terrible things done to them by the US and Israel, the latter of which is guilty of some weird metaphysical ‘aggression’ apparently for its own sake, or maybe because the US put them up to it for control of oil and whatnot. Or something like that. It certainly can’t have anything to do with Hamas or Hizbollah because they’re not capable of autonomous agency but can only react to the evils done to them by the US/Israel apparently. Have you read the Hamas charter, by the way? It’s quite an eye popper.”
You are straw manning me big time here. Just because I choose to focus on the massive military atrocities the US and Israel have committed in the region does not mean that I think Hamas/Hezbollah/Al-Qaeda/what have you are blameless, or do not play a role.
To me what is going on in the Middle East / the Persian Gulf today is quite simply a motherfucking amoral power joust — and yes, oil is certainly a big part of that. Hamas and Hezbollah thus are definitely vying for power, and have definitely each in their own ways committed war crimes in the process, but they have also at various times been broadly popular with their people (both were elected in free and fair elections with international monitors present) because they keep them alive during times of siege (mainly referring to Hamas there) and because they are willing to stand up to Israel. I cannot imagine you’d deny that Israel is an incredibly aggressive, militant state. Power is the name of the game, and with the help of the United States and Europe, the Jewish state currently rules the roost in the Middle East. Iran — and its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas — wants to take back some of that power, which is certainly the reason it is developing nuclear weapons. Thus, BOTH parties ought to be condemned from a moral standpoint, because they want power at the expense of individuals. That is the reason Israel doesn’t want to free the Palestinians, because they stand to lose some of their power.
As for the Hamas charter, yes I have read it. It’s a disgusting document. But it does not exist in a vacuum. The rage which produced such an anti-Semitic text is a product of Israel’s occupation.
I don’t claim to have all the answers here Bob. I just wish you would treat me with a bit more respect. I condemn the war policies of the US and Israel because I believe as a taxpayer it’s my moral duty — I’m paying for these wars. I also have Jewish heritage on my dad’s side and from that perspective feel it’s important to hold Israel as accountable as any other country. I have never said that the other governments in the Middle East are blameless, but I have no power over them; in the actions of the US and Israel, I am directly implicated. And I think they must be examined critically. My main point of view on these issues is that terrorism and unrest do not exist in a vacuum; certainly they are stoked by others in the region besides the US/Israel, but the actions of the US/Israel do provide them easy justification. I just think we have no right to assume the moral high ground given all the fucked up things we continue to do there every day.
Thanks for taking the time to explain your position Calvin. I think you have drawn more than a few wrong conclusions, but I understand your point of view better now.
” I have never said that the other governments in the Middle East are blameless, but I have no power over them;”
By by effectively giving groups like Hamas and Hezbollah a pass (freely elected…because they keep them alive during times of siege …they are willing to stand up to Israel..) I’ll leave aside the elections, HAMAS and Hizbollah have shown that they’ll use terror and murder to prge moderate opposition and cow the voting public, along side using the charitable wings “we are the only ones who can take care of you”. If HAMAS is so wonderful for the Gazans, why did they encourage the destruction of infrastructure buillt by Israelis and left after the withdrawal? Why is it they spend more on weapons to continue the fight than they do on improving living condtions and encouraging investment and tourism? Why is it they encourage youth to consider holy war and suicide bombing as a viable career choice?
The sieges, like the ones that occur after HAMAS and Hizbollah, how convenient for you to not mention that they are usually the result of acts HAMAS and Hizbollah takes in standing up to Israel.
HAMAS and Hizbollah do not have the courage to negotiate, to use diplomacy, only to kill.
Maybe their is little you can do to influence them, but you surely can take off the blinders, do some research and understand their true nature, as you should understand the nature of their Iranian sponsors. Don’t become another “useful fool” Iran would seek nukes to wield power over the ME even if every last Israeli cast off from Haifa and floated away.
I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for the Palestinians, but if they choose hardline warriors to be their leaders, they will only get more war. Ask yourself why the neighboring Arab countries do not allow more Palestinians within their borders. Look up the reasons behind Jordan’s killing and forced expulsion of Palestinian militants.
Israel does bear some culpability, but try to be discerning in evaluating their defensive responses vs their offensive actions, and the US’s as well.
Last, whether Israel should exist is a moot point, it does exist, and what should be done about that? Their enemies, the freely elected in Gaza, have sworn not to negotiate a peace, but to kill all Israelis. How do you suggest they deal with such a foe?
“If HAMAS is so wonderful for the Gazans, why did they encourage the destruction of infrastructure buillt by Israelis and left after the withdrawal?”
I don’t know, maybe because they want the Gazans to help themselves rather than relying on the charity of Israel, especially when Israel’s withdrawal maintained an actual siege (airspace, sea, and land border control), thus maintaining the occupation. Maybe they are sick of Palestinians in general being dependent on handouts from others for their survival….
But I don’t know why I’m being asked to defend the actions of Hamas. I was merely arguing that there are legitimate reasons — more than some kind of irrational anti-Semitism, violence, or radical Islamicism — for the Gazans to have elected Hamas, and for the Lebanese to have elected Hezbollah. We have to acknowledge that those reasons exist. I understand that destroying that infrastructure was stupid, and hateful, and seemingly irrational. But that does not mean there weren’t reasons for it.
“Why is it they spend more on weapons to continue the fight than they do on improving living condtions and encouraging investment and tourism?”
Number one — they do improve living conditions through their social services.
Number two — is investment and tourism really going to be marketable when Israel maintains a siege of Gaza? I’m sure Hamas would love more people to get into Gaza, just so they could see the devastation wrought by Israel’s bombardment of a besieged population and society. But Israel doesn’t allow that, for the same reasons that they still don’t allow journalists inside. UN aid workers can barely even get in. How are investors and/or tourists going to get in?
“Why is it they encourage youth to consider holy war and suicide bombing as a viable career choice?”
I’m going to leave this aside for right now because again, the context of the occupation and the continued stagnation of the so-called “peace process” is what has produced the kinds of ideologies that argue that holy war is noble, etc.
“The sieges, like the ones that occur after HAMAS and Hizbollah, how convenient for you to not mention that they are usually the result of acts HAMAS and Hizbollah takes in standing up to Israel. HAMAS and Hizbollah do not have the courage to negotiate, to use diplomacy, only to kill.”
“Their enemies, the freely elected in Gaza, have sworn not to negotiate a peace, but to kill all Israelis. How do you suggest they deal with such a foe?”
Both of these paragraphs are just plainly false. Hamas has been engaging in ongoing negotiations over the release of captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Also, their leader Khaled Meshal has told the NY Times that he will negotiate a peace deal along the ‘67 borders. Your information is embarrassingly out of date. At this stage, it’s Israel that doesn’t want to negotiate with Hamas, not the other way around.
I’m insulted that you tell me to do some research. Do my posts not seem well-researched? I read multiple Israeli newspapers daily.
And there is no way that you can claim to know this, and you should really probable offer some justification for such a bold claim: “Iran would seek nukes to wield power over the ME even if every last Israeli cast off from Haifa and floated away.”
“I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for the Palestinians, but if they choose hardline warriors to be their leaders, they will only get more war.”
Israel hasn’t done the same? Do you even know the ideologies of the various members of Netanyahu’s cabinet? Maybe you should take off your blinders and do some research. One example: Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is a bonafide settler whose home is in the occupied West Bank. He has sworn that peace is not achievable, and that Israel must instead focus on taking down Iran and Hamas.
“Israel does bear some culpability, but try to be discerning in evaluating their defensive responses vs their offensive actions, and the US’s as well.”
Why don’t you be specific about which actions you believe to be defensive, and how you justify that belief, and then we can debate over it. Because offensive/defensive is a really problematic and basically false dichotomy; for instance, yes we were attacked on 9/11 but how many Afghanis have to die for the Afghanistan War to no longer be considered properly “defensive”? Are we really defending the US at this point?
If you feel Israel’s Gaza War was defensive, please explain why and we can debate it. To outline my case here would take a really long time; to summarize, rocket fire against Israel had gone down tremendously in the year prior to the war and it didn’t go up until Israel broke the cease fire (NEGOTIATED, mind you) with Hamas in November ‘08 that militant rocket firing started to ramp up again. Hamas and other militants also felt that the cease fire agreement had been breached basically throughout that entire year because Israel did not open up the borders. That’s all I can get into for the moment.
Thanks for being respectful, for the most part, despite assuming that I am less-researched than you on a topic I am extremely passionate about.
Busy Week, I wanted to respond to this.
“We have to acknowledge that those reasons exist.”
IF the reasons are legitimate, yes, but you seem to place Israel and the US as the prime movers behind the problems in the ME, and the regimes and rulers of the rest in the region as merely reacting to the US and Israel.
Calvin, we could go on and on, but it is pointless.
Your topic was Iran, but you immediately use Israel as the focal point for all blame. This seems to be your starting point for any other arguments you’ll make.
“[Y]ou seem to place Israel and the US as the prime movers behind the problems in the ME”… Yes, I do. I believe that 1. the stronger military (funded by the US) has produced the strategic advantage for Israel and has taught it that it need not worry about making peace with its neighbors and 2. significant military advantage and the lack of a strong anti-war political opposition has convinced the US that its plan to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq seemingly until 2050 will go unchallenged. These national attitudes, in turn, have both emasculated and agitated Iran.
But that does not necessarily entail this: “the regimes and rulers of the rest in the region [are] merely reacting to the US and Israel.” Again, the ongoing war between the US/Israel and Iran is an amoral power joust. Certainly Iran and its allies are taking their own actions which are not simply reactive — their intent being to wrestle some of the regional power away from Israel. But the US and Israel’s actions are not simply reactive either. You can’t have it both ways. Autonomy must be assigned to both parties. Thus Israel has actively maintained a policy of avoiding peace and attacking its neighbors simply because it knows it can. Even if you deny that this has produced Iran’s current disposition toward the West, this has at least provided justification for its provocative actions and statements. As long as we and Israel continue to murder in the hundreds of thousands because our nuclear advantage allows it, we have no right to tell Iran not to seek that advantage for themselves. Clearly nuclear weapons have critical consequences for a nation’s strategic interests.
But that line of thinking is precisely the problem; we need to stop thinking in terms of strategic interests and start thinking about what is and what isn’t morally justifiable.
Not to worry, boys. Sister Sarah gets to be president, she’s ready to clean their clocks — or at least, she’s ready for President Obama to clean their clocks. And she’s not talkin’ about your weenie sanctions, neither.
“their [Iran’s] intent being to wrestle some of the regional power away from Israel.
They want more than some, and they are already trying to dominate their neighbors in the Persian Gulf, an area where Israel has little to no influence or power. Again, Israel is not the center of the conflict, but you see it that way.
The Iranians, the Saudis, Hizbollah, Hamas, and every other tinpot dictator love having Israel around as justification for their action, and for explaing why their situation is so dire, and why real reforms can never happen in their own countries.
It isn’t all about Israel, or the US in the ME.
As for the hundreds of thousands killed, don’t use hyperbole and discredited numbers to try to weight the scales.
If anyone has not seen Charlie Wilson’s War I would highly encourage it. While not directly speaking to this particular ME situation it does deal with the idea of moral versus strategic interests. In fact, I was having this very same conversation just last night. It seems to me that we can and should do both. We can pursue both a strategic AND moral path. The Afghanistan example from the movie would have been as follows: fully support as we did the strategic objective of defeating the Soviet Union in Afghanistan through the support of the Afghan rebels. This objective is both strategic (as it defeats the Soviet Union) and moral (as it relates to the slaughter of thousands of innocent Aghanis). Secondly, we don’t “fuck up the end game” and fund the reconstruction/construction of needed infrastructure in a post-war Afghanistan. The argument in the movie is that “nobody cares about a school”. However, this idea doesn’t speak to the money that we end up spending there some 20 years later. So why not pursue strategic objectives and pursue moral objectives? We will spend the money either way eventually. At least let’s spend the money with the idea that we MIGHT be able to prevent a future war. If we don’t and the Taliban is still in charge then yeah let’s remove them. But we didn’t “give peace a chance”. Ha! I’ve always wanted to say that. Sorry didn’t mean to end on a joke.