Now maybe the EU will finally get back to Sanctions

[ScottW]

https://hotair.com/archives/taylormillard/2020/01/05/iran-completely-done-nuclear-agreement/

I think it's time for full economic collapse of Iran...no foreign trade with any country.

They'll be toast within a year.

ScottW

[Art Sackman]

Nice pipedream. But we’ll never get everyone on board.
I think they have four refineries. Demolish them. Same effect, probably.

[ScottW]

On Sunday, January 5, 2020 at 11:01:46 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman wrote:
> Nice pipedream. But we’ll never get everyone on board.
> I think they have four refineries. Demolish them. Same effect, probably.

They don't export refined products though some are smuggled out due to lower than market price controls.
As an oil rich country, they actually have to import some gas.

The problem with direct military action is it tends to rally the people around the mullah's. We need them to rebel against the mullahs.
Sanctions have less rallying effect.

Europe insisted on complying with the deal...so comply. Restoring sanctions is in the deal should Iran resume nuclear activity.
And so much with their "peaceful intent" of nuclear research.
Anybody left believing that joke should be up for mental evaluation.

ScottW

[Art Sackman]

I wasn’t thinking of exports. The loss of the facilities, the loss of production capacity, the loss of stocked storage would be devedtsting whether for export or internal use. Perhaps even more devedtsting if for internal use.

[Art Sackman]

Their displeasure is a lot about the horrible economy. Taking out refineries would have a great economic impact.

We already have as strong sanctions as are feasible. But if perhaps we don’t that is an error of past practices and both Pnama and Trump should be blamed for not having the screws as tight as reasonably possible.

Are you saying our sanctions have been lax?

[ScottW]

On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 10:26:26 AM UTC-8, Art Sackman wrote:
> I wasn’t thinking of exports. The loss of the facilities, the loss of production capacity, the loss of stocked storage would be devedtsting whether for export or internal use. Perhaps even more devedtsting if for internal use.

It certainly would be devastating but also more easily blamed upon American military aggression than the more subtle but equally devastating effects of sanctions.
And recall that the Iranian protests against the mullah's (still ongoing) for which they killed hundreds and jailed thousands of their citizens was spawned by increases in domestic gas prices. We waste their refineries and that rage about gas prices and shortages will be turned against America.
I'd prefer to cultivate Iranian public opinion against the mullah's, not turn it wholly against the US.

But..If Iran did something like sink a tanker in the straights...I'd certainly support destroying their gas supplies and even taking out their electric grid as a devastating response. In such a case the people would hopefully take the attitude of "look what horror you mullah's have brought upon us".

ScottW

[Art Sackman]

Nation building. Winning the hearts and minds in a desolate tyrannical culture. Hasn’t worked before. It’s not a part of the world that’s gonna like us no matter what happens

I’ll go with utter destruction.

[ScottW]

On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 10:31:16 AM UTC-8, Art Sackman wrote:
> Their displeasure is a lot about the horrible economy. Taking out refineries would have a great economic impact.

But who get's the blame?

>
> We already have as strong sanctions as are feasible.

No we don't. We don't fully enforce sanctions against others who trade with Iran and they have waivers for some local trading of gas.

Here's a couple takes from a FP article.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/18/trump-sanctions-iran-again-inching-toward-economic-blockade-saudi-oil-rouhani/

"about the only major economic response left would be a full secondary sanctions ban that would amount to a virtual economic blockade of Iran—that is, a prohibition on countries or companies that do virtually any business with Iran from doing business with the United States, even in areas like humanitarian aid that are nominally permitted.

"“Economically, there are a number of things the United States can still do,” said Alireza Nader, the CEO of New Iran, a research and advocacy organization in Washington. He pointed to continued trade between Iran and its neighbors—Tehran still enjoys a U.S. waiver to sell electricity and natural gas to Iraq—as well as its proxies such as Hezbollah that are still able to move funds through financial systems such as Lebanon’s.

Additionally, because Iran is a big food importer just a year removed from massive popular protests over the country’s economic management, Nader sees a vulnerability for Iran’s rulers if they invite further U.S. sanctions that could imperil already-scare supplies of subsidized food, for example.
“The regime is having problems with food management, importing food, and maintaining prices,” he said. “If Trump doubles down on sanctions, that is the worst weapon for them. Sanctions and internal unrest are what they worry about the most.”

> But if perhaps we don’t that is an error of past practices and both Pnama and Trump should be blamed for not having the screws as tight as reasonably possible.

There are sanctions and there are sanctions enforcement which basically requires pressure on Iranian trading partners and tolerance of smuggling, money laundering etc. Enforcement can always be ratcheted up.

>
> Are you saying our sanctions have been lax?

They're having an effect and...given time....will likely eventually cause Iran to collapse.
But we can always tighten further and speed the collapse.
It's a balance. You might get a better result going slow causing some kind of internal revolt before the country is devastated.
The question is....do we have that much time and what will they do as they grow ever more desperate?

ScottW

[ScottW]

On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 10:52:20 AM UTC-8, Art Sackman wrote:
> Nation building. Winning the hearts and minds in a desolate tyrannical culture. Hasn’t worked before. It’s not a part of the world that’s gonna like us no matter what happens

It's not nation building to avoid turning a budding revolt into a nationalistic war movement.

>
> I’ll go with utter destruction.

and what comes from that? The one thing that Bush had right was if a legit democracy took root in Iraq, the rest of the people in the region would wonder why not us too? The problem is the tribalism gets in the way of restructure after whatever dictator is removed.
It's a long fought conflict with democracy not a very likely outcome.

I think Iran has a better shot than Iraq at tossing the mullahs and installing a more realistic democracy. They actually have the structure in place....just no power for "elected" offices.

ScottW

[Art Sackman]

That’s a lot of hopeful thinking. Relying on the oppressed masses to overturn the govt. I’ll still go with destroying the refineries.

Sanctions are near maxed out as to their reasonable potential. If you want to argue that they are not it’s an indictment unto our past and current behavior. Even more Sanctions require multinational coordination.

A few cruise missiles BOOM!!!!! It’s done.

[ScottW]

On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 12:36:07 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman wrote:
> That’s a lot of hopeful thinking. Relying on the oppressed masses to overturn the govt. I’ll still go with destroying the refineries.

I would think that would require a declaration of war or at least an AUMF from congress unless Iran does something extreme.

ScottW

[Art Sackman]

I was looking at this as our retaliation for Iran’s next retaliation, and assuming Iran is going to go big.

That fits what you said.

[ScottW]

On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 10:37:50 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman wrote:
> I was looking at this as our retaliation for Iran’s next retaliation, and assuming Iran is going to go big.
>
> That fits what you said.

I said I don't expect them to do anything big.

Trampling 50 of their own to death in protest doesn't count.

ScottW