There’s That Tough European Follow-Through
This started out well enough (since this has been Britain’s, France’s, and Germany’s show all along):
The Telegraph - Pressuring Teheran
As in the months preceding the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the council’s responsibility for maintaining international peace and security is being challenged by a country that has repeatedly defied its will. Russia has hardened its opposition to economic sanctions against Iran and may well veto such a move. If so, America, the European Union and Japan will have to go ahead on their own.
Despite the high oil price, Iran’s economy is its Achilles’ heel. According to World Bank figures, per capita income has more than halved since the 1979 revolution. Unemployment, especially among the young, and inflation are high, and the government remains wedded to an outdated model of import substitution.
The present confrontation has already caused a withdrawal of capital and inhibited foreign investment. It is through sanctions that Washington and its allies must first put pressure on a regime whose nationalistic stridency on the nuclear issue is a cloak for its corrupt and incompetent rule.
Oh thank you very much. To reuse a line from earlier, why don’t you use your own bloody allies for once, you ridiculous little twerps.
April 29th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Trying to outlaw Sat Dishes again too.
April 29th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
“Unemployment, especially among the young, and inflation are high”: It’s not ignorance of economics, it’s suicide bomber training.
April 30th, 2006 at 2:16 am
Theoretically speaking: a unilateral military blockade of Iranian oil exports would be more effective than even bombing. It would hurt us, but it would hurt them much, much more. We can also better afford it than the Chinese, who might be forced to reconsider where their interests lie and whose friendship they need more. And Russia will not get paid for their nuclear technology and missiles, just as Iraq never paid them.
As we have seen time and again, it is the sort of behaviour that gets you appeased, so why not use it?
Their power is based on oil, but right now, we are more powerful because we can take the oil away. Once Iran has nukes, they have that power, too. For example: once they attack Saudi oil installations (and why wouldn´t they?) we will see sky-high oil prices anyway. Better if it happens as long there is a benefit to be had.
When their economy gets wiped out, forces much more powerful than the pro-democracy students will turn on the regime: merchants and moneylenders.
Of course, we will never do it.
April 30th, 2006 at 4:50 am
Looks like they are doing a pretty good job of wiping out their own economy, in spite of the oil. The parallels with the Soviet Union/Cold War keep on keeping on.
The key in this instance is oil-replacement technology (rather than Star Wars). One of those is nuclear of course, but there are interesting developments with sub-critical, Thorium based reactors that not only do not create nasty long-term radiactive waste products and fissile material suitable for bombs, but can actually burn Plutonium. Japan, India (and I think the US) are developing reactors based on this technology, which is being championed here also - Australia has the largest known reserves of Thorium.
April 30th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Hail Oz, eh? But what happens when Australia starts holding her Thorium reserves against the rest of the world, creating economic and geopolitical instability! It’ll start all over again! Somehow you don’t seem like the scheming types.
Anyway, I can say with what amounts to absolute authority that Americans will never see any benefit to high fuel prices. As it is now, they can’t see what they’re getting out of $3 gasoline when the oil companies are making billions of dollars (answer: a tank of gas) so they’re certainly not going to be able to see that far outside of themselves even if across the street you had leprechauns and unicorns prancing around with whatever the physical personification of a Democratic Iran might be. (Irania?)
April 30th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
At 3 bucks per gallon and change I want at least a quality tumbler or a scratch off game for every fillup.
April 30th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
You know, that might just be the answer. Raise the cost a few cents more, but a free lotto ticket to all. Lie back and chuckle over getting away with using the word “free” for the gazillionth time in marketing and watch the masses drive in circles around the gas station just to come right back for more.
May 1st, 2006 at 4:48 am
You’re a marketing genius, nin! But we need to add Free Lotto ticket with $30 of fuel, and we can forget about the need for a price increase. “No one ever went broke underestimating the American public” must be the motto of many a marketing agency.