New polling from the Pew Research Center this morning suggests that Americans are in a rather bellicose mood when it comes to confronting Iran, and pessimistic about the power of sanctions to keep Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
In the survey, 58 percent of respondents said it was more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if that meant taking military action. Only 30 percent preferred avoiding a military conflict even if it meant Iran going nuclear. Republicans (74 percent) were far more supportive of using military force than Democrats (50 percent), but Democratic backing was still substantial.
Around half of Americans, meanwhile, believe the United States should remain neutral if Israel strikes Iran. But, as Pew points out, more respondents said the United States should support (39 percent) Israel than oppose (5 percent) it. A majority of Republicans think the United States should back Israel while a majority of Democrats think it should stay neutral.
...
Where there's more agreement across the aisle is in the belief that tough economic sanctions -- a tactic the Obama administration continues to pursue -- will be ineffective in persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear program. Sixty-four percent of the public thinks these measures will not work, compared with 56 percent in October 2009.
Of course, supporting military force if it means preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons (in other words, approving of it as a last resort) isn't the same as a full-throated endorsement of the military option. In a Quinnipiac University poll in November, 36 percent of respondents supported the use of force in any case, while an additional 14 percent backed the option if sanctions failed. In a CNN/ORC survey around the same time, more than six in 10 respondents selected "economic and diplomatic efforts" -- not "military action right now" -- as the best U.S. policy toward Iran's nuclear program.
If Americans are so down on economic sanctions as an effective solution, however, one wonders whether they're beginning to resign themselves to a military conflict, even if they have little appetite for it.
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
Post subject: Re: Iran to attack Israel very very soon.
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:05 pm
Supersonic
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:07 pm Posts: 12393
I keep popping in to see if the board economists have any thoughts about SWIFT's actions a few days ago.
Maybe if I bring it up first...
Iran cut off from global financial system
BRUSSELS (AP) — Dozens of Iranian banks were blocked from doing business with much of the world as the West tightens the financial screws on a country it wants to prevent from developing nuclear weapons.
The Belgium-based company that facilitates most international bank transfers on Thursday took the unprecedented step of blocking 30 Iranian banks from using its service. The move is likely to hurt Iran's all-important oil industry and make it difficult for citizens to receive money from relatives living abroad.
The move by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT, is part of a broader effort by Western nations to isolate Iran financially and force it to demonstrate that it is not trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, but officials in many other countries believe otherwise.
SWIFT said it was forced by recent European Union sanctions to discontinue service to the Iranian banks beginning Saturday. SWIFT is a secure private network used by nearly every bank around the world to send payment messages that lead to the transfer of money across international borders.
The chief executive of SWIFT, Lazaro Campos, described the move as "extraordinary and unprecedented."
"It is a direct result of international and multilateral action to intensify financial sanctions against Iran," he said.
There was no immediate reaction from the Iranian government or the banks involved. Not all Iranian banks are subject to EU sanctions, and oil experts say there will be ways for Iran to sell oil without using SWIFT.
Still, blocking Iranian banks' access to SWIFT is "tightening the noose" on Iran, said Ali Ansari, an expert on the Middle East at the London-based Chatham House think tank.
Sanctions long in place have failed to convince Iran to return to nuclear talks; the EU, which imports about 14 percent of Iran's oil, plans to institute an embargo on Iranian oil in July.
The regime has been able to withstand these sanctions in part because high global oil prices have provided Iran, the world's third largest exporter, with record oil revenues. Iran exports 3.5 million barrels of oil per day, about 4 percent of the oil consumed in the world. Last year, Iran generated $100 billion in revenue from oil, up from $20 billion a decade ago, according to IHS CERA, a consulting firm.
Iran is expected to continue to sell to India, China and other major oil customers that are not participating in the EU embargo.
But by forcing SWIFT to expel Iran, Western nations are trying to make it more difficult for Iran to sell oil even to willing customers. A single oil tanker can hold $100 million worth of oil, making electronic bank transfers crucial.
Analysts expect Iran to try to skirt the sanctions in a few ways. It may exchange oil for cash, gold or other commodities directly. It may try to mingle its oil with oil from other countries in international terminals and pipelines to mask its origins. It could get help from the central banks of countries friendly to Iran.
"Throughout the history of the oil trade, someone always gets around trade embargos one way or another," said Jim Ritterbusch, a veteran oil trader and analyst.
Also, Iranian banks that have not been sanctioned by the EU could sell oil.
Analysts say by reducing the number of customers for Iranian oil and making it more difficult to pay, Iran will be forced to accept a lower price for its oil and likely be unable to sell all that it hopes to.
Judith Dwarkin, chief energy economist at ITG Investment research, said Spain and Japan are already reducing Iranian imports and Europe's large oil companies have also cut back ahead of the July deadline. Iranian oil shipments have already slipped in recent months. In Feburary they fell to a 10-year low, according to the International Energy Agency.
Why have I been silent, silent for so long?, Our generals have gamed it out, Confident the west will survive. We people have not even been considered.
What is this right to "preventive war"? A war that could erase the Iranian people. Dominated by it's neighbor, pulsing with righteousness Smug in the fact that it is they, not Iran, Who have the Bomb.
Why have I so far avoided to identify Israel by it's name?, Israel and it's ever increasing nuclear arsenal, Beyond reproach, Uncontrolled, uninspected.
We all know these things Yet we all remain silent, fearful of being labeled: anti-Semitic hateful worse
Considering Germany's past these labels stick So we call is "business", "reparation" take your pick, As we deliver yet another submarine. As we provide to Israel the means to deliver annihilation. I say what must be said.
Why did I stay silent until now? Because I'm German, of course. I'm tainted by a stain I cannot wash out I'm silent because I want so badly to make it right To put my sins in the past and leave them silently there.
Why did I wait to say it until now? And write these words with the last of my ink? Declaring that Israel threatens world peace? Because it is true and it must be said, Tomorrow will be too late.
We Germans now carry a new burden of sin on our shoulders Through the weapons we have sold We are helping to carry out this foreseeable tragedy No excuse will remove our stain of complicity.
It must be said. I won't be silent I've had enough of the hypocrisy; Please shed the silence with me, The consequences are all too predictable. It's time to demand free and permanent control of BOTH Israel's nuclear arsenal AND Iran's nuclear facilities enforced with international supervision.
It's the only way, in a land convulsed with insanity, Israelis, Palestinians, everybody, will survive. And we too, will survive.
Under what authority does he think the international community can take control of Israel's nukes and Iran's power plants? Why does he assume that the international community will be more benevolent than Israel and Iran?
Post subject: Re: Iran to attack Israel very very soon.
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:48 pm
Reissued
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
broken iris wrote:
Under what authority does he think the international community can take control of Israel's nukes and Iran's power plants? Why does he assume that the international community will be more benevolent than Israel and Iran?
For the bold, I think that's a safe assumption. It seems pretty unlikely that the "international community" is going to attack either one, but it doesn't seem all that unlikely to see an attack in the next year. As for what authority, if the authority doesn't exist it can be created, whether through the IAEA or elsewhere.
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
Post subject: Re: Iran to attack Israel very very soon.
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:22 pm
Unthought Known
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
Why would Israel agree to arms monitoring that the US, Russia, China, India and Pakistan aren't party to? (The stockpiles of other NATO members probably aren't worth monitoring )
Post subject: Re: Iran to attack Israel very very soon.
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:48 pm
Reissued
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
simple schoolboy wrote:
Why would Israel agree to arms monitoring that the US, Russia, China, India and Pakistan aren't party to? (The stockpiles of other NATO members probably aren't worth monitoring )
I don't think they will/would, but easing the security dilemma in the Middle East between them and Iran would be a good reason (not sure it outweighs their fear, or should outweigh that fear/level of caution).
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
Under what authority does he think the international community can take control of Israel's nukes and Iran's power plants? Why does he assume that the international community will be more benevolent than Israel and Iran?
For the bold, I think that's a safe assumption. It seems pretty unlikely that the "international community" is going to attack either one, but it doesn't seem all that unlikely to see an attack in the next year.
They international community is in a constant state of war and Israel and Iran are proxies in that fight. Not all wars use tanks and tomahawks.
dkfan9 wrote:
As for what authority, if the authority doesn't exist it can be created, whether through the IAEA or elsewhere.
"Authority should derive from the consent of the governed, not from the threat of force!" - Barbie, Toy Story 3
The real danger, as I see it, would be to forcefully disarm Israel and leave them open to slaughter. You know, "Social Justice". If you think the Afghans are good insurgents, imagine what the far more intelligent and dedicated Israelis could do (9/11 part-2?). And really, it comes down to respecting the sovereign rights of nation-states. If the international community (and the US) continues to do whatever it wants to less powerful nations, it will drive more nations to pursue nukes because they will realize that's the only way they won't be fucked with. I am not saying that sanctions and the like should not be imposed on bad-behaviors, but the international community has no rights or authority to just decide to take control over weaker nations without their consent.
Post subject: Re: Iran to attack Israel very very soon.
Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:50 pm
Reissued
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
broken iris wrote:
dkfan9 wrote:
broken iris wrote:
Under what authority does he think the international community can take control of Israel's nukes and Iran's power plants? Why does he assume that the international community will be more benevolent than Israel and Iran?
For the bold, I think that's a safe assumption. It seems pretty unlikely that the "international community" is going to attack either one, but it doesn't seem all that unlikely to see an attack in the next year.
They international community is in a constant state of war and Israel and Iran are proxies in that fight. Not all wars use tanks and tomahawks.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Sure, there are always some states in the international system at war (with states and non state actors), but it's very rare that the "international community" finds itself at war (I don't really know how you're defining international community, but I was thinking an intervention endorsed by the Security Council, like Libya sort of was). I don't understand how Israel and Iran are proxies in this context, either.
bi wrote:
dkfan9 wrote:
As for what authority, if the authority doesn't exist it can be created, whether through the IAEA or elsewhere.
"Authority should derive from the consent of the governed, not from the threat of force!" - Barbie, Toy Story 3
The real danger, as I see it, would be to forcefully disarm Israel and leave them open to slaughter. You know, "Social Justice". If you think the Afghans are good insurgents, imagine what the far more intelligent and dedicated Israelis could do (9/11 part-2?). And really, it comes down to respecting the sovereign rights of nation-states. If the international community (and the US) continues to do whatever it wants to less powerful nations, it will drive more nations to pursue nukes because they will realize that's the only way they won't be fucked with. I am not saying that sanctions and the like should not be imposed on bad-behaviors, but the international community has no rights or authority to just decide to take control over weaker nations without their consent.
I wouldn't argue for forceful removal of Israel's weapons, and I don't know that I'd want them to give up their nuclear weapons either. Sovereignty is overrated though. You're right that states might be less cooperative about giving up nukes, especially dictatorships, because of what they see us doing in Libya and elsewhere. Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program early in the decade, and we help overthrow the regime less than a decade later. But the alternative was worse. I'm okay with possibly losing some cooperation from authoritarian regimes in the future if it meant stopping the slaughter of Benghazi and helping overthrow a dictator, giving Libyans a chance to the self-government Barbie likes so much.
Your last sentence is important: who is referred to by "their"? Whose consent do countries need to take control? Rebel forces in Libya wanted us on their side (and we never even took control of the country), but obviously the government didn't. The problem with sovereignty is that it's often used by leaders who do not represent their people or their people's interests, in defense of acts that grossly violate those people's interests (in free speech or not getting tortured for protesting, for example).
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
Users browsing this forum: 10Club Management and 5 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
)