In the second presidential debate Senators Obama and McCain were both asked if they would be prepared to defend Israel should Iran attack Israel. In Obama’s response he outlined his approach and hopes for dealing with Iran. He reinforce the dangers of Iran and nuclear proliferation, and his “talk-first” approach to diplomatic relations.
“And that's why I have consistently said that, if we can work more effectively with other countries diplomatically to tighten sanctions on Iran, if we can reduce our energy consumption through alternative energy, so that Iran has less money, if we can impose the kinds of sanctions that, say, for example, Iran right now imports gasoline, even though it's an oil-producer, because its oil infrastructure has broken down, if we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need and the refined petroleum products, that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis. That starts putting the squeeze on them.”
The economic sanctions would be more likely to hurt average citizens than political/oil elite. Iranians rely heavily on trade and when their economy closes in on them. Victor Comras, an attorney and special counsel to Eren Law Firm said in a statement to the U.S. Senate: “Iran’s fledgling commercial class has become very reliant on…trade. And it is this very commercial class that provides the greatest number of employment opportunities in Tehran and Iran’s other urban centers. Sanctions that threaten to constrict this trade could have a considerable impact on this commercial class, placing further distress on Iran’s vulnerable economy and high urban unemployment”. To date the primary impact of economic sanctions has been a push to make Iranians more nationalistic. In going forward it is important that we develop alternative energy as a means of combating global climate change and not for its security merits as they relate to Iran.
Comments