33 Sanctions on Iran since 1979 and they've made NO difference.

That's right folks, 33 sanctions. That's:

10 U.S sanctions,
9 EU sanctions,
7 UN sanctions,
7 sanctions by other countries:

Here are the sources:

dfat.gov.au...

www.dnb-nederland.nl...

So what other sanctions must we impose on them?

How many more sanctions?

How much longer should we continue this stalemate? How many more should we hurt?

We have a decent amount of people on this forum and outside moaning and whining about this Iranian deal but we hear no viable alternatives. None. I haven't come across one person who opposes diplomacy give me a viable alternative... not one. It's either 'more sanctions' or 'lets put strong people in Washington' (in other words, more neocons). Why? 33 sanctions over 37 years and you want more sanctions to continue? Makes no sense to me.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I wonder, have those that impose those sanctions ever been sanctioned themselves? Sometimes I think it would be nice if they could have a taste of their own medicine. Having said that, the only people that seem to get hurt by sanctions are the ordinary people and not the politicians, rulers and wealthy.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Let me take an alternative view to the sanctions vs deals paradigm.

No sanctions. No deals. No giving them anything. No scolding them. Just leave them be. Get out of the middle east. No interfering. Let the middle east take care of the middle east and we take care of our own yard.

But they are 6 months away from the bomb !!111!!!!!!!!!!

/sarc

It made hundreds of billions in dollars of difference to them. I don't love the deal but I can't get that upset when we're holding hands with the more prominent face of extremism in Saudi Arabia

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Maybe we should take a lesson from them and start taking hostages?

Of course they make a difference. The regular average citizen can play make believe that their government can actually do something against a country that isn't a third world country.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

We argue about foreign countries, while we can't fix problems in our damn home!

Political argument is for the grumpy old men.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

"The Australian Government is implementing changes to Australia’s sanctions on Iran in line with our international obligations under UN Security Council resolutions."

Note how they use the word Obligations. The Australian govt is trying to imply the UN is a law making body, see, a) it proves they are a slave state to the UN and b) they are starting to train us up to think of the UN as a law making body.

Note that it was NOT worded like this. "The Australian Government is implementing changes to Australia’s sanctions on Iran in accordance with the UN Security Council resolution."

This evidence that Australia is owned by someone other than the australian people reminds me of I what an australian soldier said in a doco I saw on the Vietnam war. He was part of parade of soldiers in Vietnam where they were addressed by an American Officer.

The soldier said that when the Americian Officer said "the brits have got the Gurkers and we've got the Aussies," he said he knew right then and there that Australia had no place being in Vietnam at all.

Funny how our voluntary membership signature at the UN imposes "obligations" that we can never get out of. Its even funnier that no one ever suggests because we are a voluntary member of the UN, we can therefore choose when we will and when we not comply with a security council resolution and maintain our free independent sovereign right to make our own decisions about what we will or wont do on the international scene.

Iranians are usually patriotic, religious, .... they have a religious hero called Husain (rediciously the middle name of Barack Obama was Husain!), he is the symbol of resistance. They get energy from tragedy of karbala and Husain. This tragedy or drama promotes that one should not handle the oppression even if he becomes a martyr. As a matter of fact Husain was a victim of some sort of Islamic radicalism similar to ISIS ........
Husain and his family and his a few companions were sanctioned and finally they confronted with a regiment of enemies and most of them were killed or enslaved.

The importance of this paradigm of Husain after thousand years is so strong that you see every year around twenty millions muslims mostly Shias go to visit his shrine in Iraq regardless of the threats of ISIS usually in a ceremony called Arbaeen.

You do not beleive if I say even Christians of Iraq go to visit his shrine. This is a strong paradim there.

So the more some politicians of USA show invasive behaviour the more they get defensive or invasive feedback from the mainstream Iranians because they feel and sympathize more with Husain and their patriotism and religious culture reinforce each other.

This is why sanctions do not work perfectly and the fact is that Iran has completely a popular government contrary to what some media try to show.

If USA does not show flexibility regarding Iran the fragile victory of Hassan Rouhani (present president of Iran) and his treaty with USA changes to a complete defeat and then USA will have no chance in Iran and more Iranians reach to this point that USA is like Yazid (the king who was the enemy of Husain) and unreliable.

I can't help but think the removal of sanctions is part of a ploy of some sort.
We give the Iranians nuclear materials and if an A-bomb goes off we know where the blame will instantly go.
Iran along with North Korea and Syria are the final holdouts against the International banking cartel.
I'd love to be wrong but with the economy on the brink the usual response is to start a war somewhere to get the people mad at someone besides their own government.
Iran has been quietly rebuilding their military for 25 years without let up.
A nation of 80 million with a modern military is nothing to mess with.
The schism within Islam will be used to ignite a conflagration in the Middle East, IMHO.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

There is no reason to sanction Iran. Iran has not started a war for about two hundred years. The sanctions damage ordinary people less the regime.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Southern Guardian

There is no reason to sanction Iran. Iran has not started a war for about two hundred years. The sanctions damage ordinary people less the regime.

We know US-led sanctions against Iraq after the first Gulf War killed as many as 576,000 Iraqi children. Being cut off in a globalized economy is a certain death sentence for the country's young and vulnerable. That sure is a lot of completely avoidable murder for "peace time". Iran has suffered badly, first with Saddam Hussein's invasion and six years of war with the loss of a half million followed by the sanctions. We've handled Iran wrong for 50 years since the CIA offed their democratically elected leader.
www.nytimes.com...