Iranians Feel Bite of Sanctions, Blame U.S., Not Own Leaders

cyberhog

Iranians are not giving in to the "economic terrorism" imposed by Obama and his cohorts.

The majority of Iranians are so far seemingly willing to pay the high price of sanctions. Sixty-three percent say that Iran should continue to develop its nuclear program, even given the scale of sanctions imposed on their country because of it. In December, one in two Iranians supported their country developing its own nuclear power capabilities for nonmilitary uses.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160358/iranians-feel-bite-sanctions-blame-not-own-leaders.aspx

As you would expect the more the US tries to hurt ordinary Iranians with uncivilized "crippling" sanctions the greater their capacity to resist becomes. The fact that the Obama administration thought "economic terrorism" would produce a favourable result for them just shows you what an incompetent bunch of loonies run the US.

smurfjed

Considering that the poll was taken in Iran, what response would you expect? I'm actually surprised that its only 56%

smurfjed

cyberhog

The question is how long will Obama carry on hurting ordinary Iranians when the people clearly have no intention of turning on their government.

Pressure mounts on Obama to change tactics on Iran

In a letter to the White House, Iran experts insisted diplomacy, not further sanctions, will have the best results. But US actions since then indicate more sticks than carrots.

Arguing that further sanctions "are unlikely to stop Iran's nuclear pursuits," a group of Iran experts and senior former officials are calling on the White House to pursue realistic, "serious, sustained negotiations" with Tehran that they say are the best chance to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.

...

"A diplomacy-centric approach is the only option that can prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon and a war," write the 24 signatories in the Dec. 6 letter only now made public. Success will require "reciprocal" steps and an "appropriate and proportional paring back of international sanctions on Iran," they write.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/1220/Pressure-mounts-on-Obama-to-change-tactics-on-Iran

There are no right answers here. The iranian people are far more sophisticated than western media gives them credit for. They will stabilise their own country themselves, though it might take another generation or two.

old_aussie

cyberhog wrote: »

the people clearly have no intention of turning on their government.

Clashes and protests

“It may not be widespread yet, but it demonstrates not just unhappiness with the Ahmadinejad government, but also dissatisfaction with the Islamic republic’s failure to stem the economic crisis brought about by incompetence, mismanagement and sanctions,” said Alireza Nader, a political analyst at the RAND Corporation, a research and consulting firm. He said that “the regime is going to face much greater instability in the future, especially if it loses the support of Iran’s business and merchant class.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/world/middleeast/clashes-reported-in-tehran-as-riot-police-target-money-changers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Black Swan

Yes, there are economic sanctions by the US against Iran, but there appears to be a very complex, and perhaps inconsistent set of policies regarding the relationships between both countries. For example, according to the Institute for International Education there were 6,982 students from Iran attending US higher education institutions during 2011-2012 academic year.

I have heard little or nothing about this in the US news media, but personally know 2 students from Iran that I have shared coffee with a few times in our locale javahouse, one pursuing a masters in mechanical engineering at Cal State University Fullerton, and another part-time teaching physics at Cal State University Long Beach while doing a PhD at University of California Irvine. I know the CSUF engineering student has been free to travel back-and-forth from the US to Iran, having taken summer break 2012 in Teheran to visit family.

Neither of these Iranian students have felt a need to hide their Iranian citizenship, nor expressed any problems in relating with the US citizens they have encountered while residing in Southern California, suggesting to me that the relationships between the US and Iran are quite complex or inconsistent from the standpoint of polices, as well as interpersonal ones between citizens from both countries.

I know my personal experiences are anecdotal and not research based, but it makes me wonder if there are problems with the US news media regarding how they treat the complex set of relationships between the US and Iran, omitting or low keying some information, while sensationalist spinning other types of information.

Jonny7

Deleted User wrote: »

There are no right answers here. The iranian people are far more sophisticated than western media gives them credit for. They will stabilise their own country themselves, though it might take another generation or two.

The Iranian people don't have much say in who governs them.

All opposition has been crushed, it's just very conservative and hardline candidates now.

The current regime will run the country into the ground unless it seriously changes tact.

cyberhog

old_aussie wrote: »

Clashes and protests

“It may not be widespread yet, but it demonstrates not just unhappiness with the Ahmadinejad government, but also dissatisfaction with the Islamic republic’s failure to stem the economic crisis brought about by incompetence, mismanagement and sanctions,” said Alireza Nader,

The protest movement will die because of US sanctions. The Iranian people are clearly more unhappy with Obama's actions than they are with their own government.

Sanctions do not, based on this poll, seem to be rallying Iranians against their leaders or the nuclear program, but rather reinforcing popular antagonism toward the United States. To the extent that Iranian leaders are worried about popular support, this poll suggests that nuclear development and defiant foreign policy will continue to be winners.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/08/new-poll-iranians-mostly-blame-the-u-s-for-sanctions-still-want-a-nuclear-program/

there is a surprising change in attitude amongst some parts of society, including some of Iran's traditionally pro-western youth. At Tehran University, students of American studies have noticed it among their peers.

"They are trying to separate people here from the government, to create some kind of internal uprising, but it's going to backfire," Marziyeh, a student in her early twenties, said.

"The more they push, the more it will lead to a rise in anti-Americanism."

http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/middle-east/iran-sanctions-stoke-anti-us-sentiment

But Obama clearly isn't heeding the Iranian peoples views. Instead, the US has opted to push even harder.

The West escalated the economic war another notch on Wednesday, imposing a new set of restrictions intended to force Iran into what amounts to a form of barter trade for oil...

A senior Obama administration official called the latest step “a significant turning of the screw,” repeating the administration’s four-year argument that the mullahs here face a “stark choice” between holding on to their nuclear program or reviving their oil revenue, the country’s economic lifeblood.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/world/middleeast/us-ratchets-up-an-economic-war-against-tehran.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Either Obama is too dense to recognise that sanctions are counter-productive or he's just an insolent a--hole who doesn't give a damn that he is making ordinary Iranians suffer. Personally I think it's the latter.

CollardGreens

I know my personal experiences are anecdotal and not research based, but it makes me wonder if there are problems with the US news media regarding how they treat the complex set of relationships between the US and Iran, omitting or low keying some information, while sensationalist spinning other types of information.

There IMO are lots of problems with the US media. We usually get the news that is OK'ed by the White House first and that usually is the news that travels world wide and it is an obama agenda based news. There doesn't seem to be a "middle" on any of the news we get here, either too far to the left (i.e. WH owned) or too far to the right.

Either Obama is too dense to recognise that sanctions are counter-productive or he's just an insolent a--hole who doesn't give a damn that he is making ordinary Iranians suffer. Personally I think it's the latter.

I agree with the above statement and would like to add that IMO I don't think he gives a damn that the US people are suffering either! I'm of the opinion that he is the most narcissist human that has walked the earth, and not a very smart one at that. All the book sense in the world will not give a person any common sense. According to what I am hearing from people I know that do not receive gov. handouts is that he will go down as the worst president in the history of America.

Jonny7

CollardGreens wrote: »

There IMO are lots of problems with the US media. We usually get the news that is OK'ed by the White House first and that usually is the news that travels world wide and it is an obama agenda based news. There doesn't seem to be a "middle" on any of the news we get here, either too far to the left (i.e. WH owned) or too far to the right.

So, something like.. let's say.. Finnish news outlets must report things entirely differently?

CollardGreens

So, something like.. let's say.. Finnish news outlets must report things entirely differently?

Can't say I really get your question. What is it you are asking, or are you making a statement as a question?

penzo

Black Swan wrote: »

Neither of these Iranian students have felt a need to hide their Iranian citizenship, nor expressed any problems in relating with the US citizens they have encountered while residing in Southern California, suggesting to me that the relationships between the US and Iran are quite comple

If there is anywhere in the us an iranian wouldn't have problems settling it would be southern california, huge population of iranian americans there, so much so that they often call LA the nickname los tehrangeles

Jonny7

CollardGreens wrote: »

Can't say I really get your question. What is it you are asking, or are you making a statement as a question?

If US news as a whole is so controlled, etc.. then why is it virtually the same as foreign news?

clairefontaine

Jonny7 wrote: »

If US news as a whole is so controlled, etc.. then why is it virtually the same as foreign news?

What?

How is it the same as "foreign" news. "Foreign" covers a lot of ground.

clairefontaine

CollardGreens wrote: »

There IMO are lots of problems with the US media. We usually get the news that is OK'ed by the White House first and that usually is the news that travels world wide and it is an obama agenda based news. There doesn't seem to be a "middle" on any of the news we get here, either too far to the left (i.e. WH owned) or too far to the right.







I agree with the above statement and would like to add that IMO I don't think he gives a damn that the US people are suffering either! I'm of the opinion that he is the most narcissist human that has walked the earth, and not a very smart one at that. All the book sense in the world will not give a person any common sense. According to what I am hearing from people I know that do not receive gov. handouts is that he will go down as the worst president in the history of America.

You'd think he's trying to start a war. Economic sanctions are usually the pre cursor aren't they? Causing a currency to be worth nothing? Isn't this usually how it works?

Obama isn't alone though. The EU has also given into sanctions. But then again the EU adooooooooor Obama so that's not much of a shock really.

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

What?

How is it the same as "foreign" news. "Foreign" covers a lot of ground.

So does "US" news.

Do you see my point?

clairefontaine

Jonny7 wrote: »

So does "US" news.

Do you see my point?

I think Collard Greens means the mainstream dominant media that is on networks and on the coastal publications and production, ie California and NYC. They are the main producers and distributors of the news and media and the main narratives that people cling onto, and guess what they are both very much BLUE.

But their adoration, or lack of criticism of Obama takes it all to a whole new level, like that whatever that was on 60 Minutes with Obama and H. Clinton. What was that about? They call themselves a news programme! That wasn't news...that was.... what was that?

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think Collard Greens means the mainstream dominant media that is on networks and on the coastal publications and production, ie California and NYC. They are the main producers and distributors of the news and media and the main narratives that people cling onto, and guess what they are both very much BLUE.

But their adoration, or lack of criticism of Obama takes it all to a whole new level, like that whatever that was on 60 Minutes with Obama and H. Clinton. What was that about? They call themselves a news programme! That wasn't news...that was.... what was that?

They were very critical of Bush. How does that work?

clairefontaine

Jonny7 wrote: »

They were very critical of Bush. How does that work?

Bias.

They are blue states. Bush was a red president.

Unfortunately the only mainstream arguing with them is faux news, and they suck just as badly as the rest of them.

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

Bias.

They are blue states. Bush was a red president.

Unfortunately the only mainstream arguing with them is faux news, and they suck just as badly as the rest of them.

Therefore..

Most "red" state reporting is "correctly" critical of Obama?

Black Swan

penzo wrote: »

If there is anywhere in the us an iranian wouldn't have problems settling it would be southern california, huge population of iranian americans there, so much so that they often call LA the nickname los tehrangeles

The Los Angeles Metropolitan Area exceeds 17,775,984 people.

Per the US Census (2000), there were 114,712 Iranian foreign born residing in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. Although the data collection times are somewhat different, 114,712/17,775,984 = .00645 or considerably less than one percent. The highest point in Iranian immigration was 1990, and has declined substantially since. Accounting for differences in data collection time periods, it is highly unlikely that the Iranian born population in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area would exceed one percent, hardly grounds to "call LA the nickname los tehrangeles."

clairefontaine

Jonny7 wrote: »

Therefore..

Most "red" state reporting is "correctly" critical of Obama?

No, more like internet reporting.

Media that comes out the blue states, which is most of it, is not holding Obama accountable.

The Atlantic, is the only one I've noticed any neutrality, or at least ask questions, and they are DC based.

I don't think the red state publications/media have any kind of national reach do they the way CBS, NBC, ABC, The NY Times etc do?

Black Swan

cyberhog wrote: »

Iranians are not giving in to the "economic terrorism" imposed by Obama and his cohorts.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160358/iranians-feel-bite-sanctions-blame-not-own-leaders.aspx

A measure of caution should be exercised when interpreting polls conducted by Gallup, given that their tracking polls leading up to the November 2012 presidential elections in the US predicted a Mitt Romney win.

cyberhog

When you take into account the sheer malice Democrats have shown to the Iranian people you can understand why they are not going to react the way Obama wants.

Critics also argued that these measures will hurt the Iranian people. Quite frankly, we need to do just that.

- Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA)

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/113375-new-sanction-on-iran-must-be-enforced-rep-brad-sherman

clairefontaine

I think Obama wants war with Iran, that's what these sanctions are for.

cyberhog

Some of Hillary Clinton's parting words on Iran have turned out to be utter nonsense. In a recent interview she claimed there are no sanctions on medicines.

MS. SALES: My only question is if you have issues with the Government of Iran, why destroy the people with the current sanctions in place? It’s very difficult to find medicine in Iran. Where is your sense of humanity?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say on the medicine and on food and other necessities, there are no sanctions. And what we have tried to do, and in fact, I have approved the sending of medicines to Iran for exactly the purpose that is pointed out. We do not want the people of Iran to suffer and certainly to be deprived of necessary medicines.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2013/01/203452.htm

However a new report just released by the Woodrow Wilson Center has found that sanctions are the leading cause of medicine shortages in Iran.

While the report points to structural problems in Iran’s pharmaceutical sector as well as mismanagement and corruption by the Iranian government as contributing factors, it determines that these are far outweighed by the consequences of American and European sanctions.

...

The report examines the possible explanations for the shortage and weighs them against testimony and evidence from pharmaceutical companies in Iran and the West. The conclusion is that the sanctions have closed off banking channels for medicine exports to Iran that are supposed to be shielded. “With Iranian banks blacklisted and international banks hesitant, very few options are left for Western companies trying to sell their medicine and humanitarian products to Iran."

As the report notes:

“What is ostensibly permitted by license under one rubric is in fact ruled out by express prohibition under another.” Blacklisting Iran’s main banking infrastructure and cutting the Islamic Republic from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) created obstacles for international trade; trade in humanitarian goods, including medicine, is no exception. By removing the larger Iranian banks—especially Bank Tejarat, which is the country’s main trade bank—from the system, the banking circuit was cut between the Iranian importer of legal humanitarian goods and the seller.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/sanctions_medical_supply_shortages_in_iran.pdf


So Clinton may be technically correct in saying sanctions do not target medicine and other necessities, but in practice, they are doing just that.

One testimony in the report, from an American pharmaceutical company representative, outlines how the sale of a patented drug necessary for organ transplants was blocked due to banking complications. The U.S. Treasury issued the necessary licensing and the sale had been deemed legal, yet this was not enough to overcome banking complications caused by sanctions. “Without a viable replacement for this drug,” states the report, “Iranian organ transplant recipients were left with no alternative.”

http://www.niacouncil.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8961&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=-1

Depriving organ transplant recipients of necessary medicines is an outrageous violation of the UN Charter and I am personally revolted that a supposedly civilised Western nation can sink to such a low.

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think Obama wants war with Iran, that's what these sanctions are for.

I'll try to give an overview.

Here are the "almost" definites.

If Iran uses peaceful nuclear tech as a cover to either weaponise or gain the ability to weaponise on short notice - Israel will not allow this to happen.

Yes it's not "fair" or any of that, but the world is not a level playing field. The grim reality is that strategically the Israelis will not allow themselves be held under the threat from an overtly hostile country of a weapon that could potentially wipe them out (small country, history, siege mentality, surrounded by unfriendly neighbours, hawkish government, etc)

Behind the scenes every country knows this, and the implications of war that it carries should Iran weaponise, also the certainty of a nuclear arms race in the region, etc

This is why the UN are passing sanctions almost unanimously. No one wants to see a nuclear armed Iran, and few trust the current regime in Iran.

How to stop Iran arming? well constrict the economy with sanctions is about the only option to force them genuinely to the table.

The fact that Iran is not being fully open about its peaceful nuclear programme is just feeding fears among the international community, who are privy to far more information than us punters. Basically it isn't helping Iran's cause. As I've said in other threads, Pakistan did exactly the same thing, played the exact same cards, before it weaponised.

TL;DR Iran is playing a game of nationalism and bluff, testing the resolve of much more powerful influential players, and is in turn suffering sanctions from those major nations, including it's main ally - it's getting itself into a lose-lose situation, making any complicity with the int. community look more like a climb-down or a weakness - which it's hardliners will not tolerate.

323

Deleted User wrote: »

There are no right answers here. The iranian people are far more sophisticated than western media gives them credit for. They will stabilise their own country themselves, though it might take another generation or two.

Agree, was impressed with those I have met.

Remember thought. They did have a democracy over 60 years ago for a few years until the US destabilised it and replaced it with their puppet dictatorship.

Many there still remember that dictatorship, so will take at least a generation or two to stabilise.

asherbassad

Jonny7 wrote: »

The Iranian people don't have much say in who governs them.

All opposition has been crushed, it's just very conservative and hardline candidates now.

The current regime will run the country into the ground unless it seriously changes tact.

They may not have much of a say in who governs them but you or I (and certainly not your wanker idols in Washington or Whitehall) shouldn't have any say in who governs them either. I've been to Iran, have you? Didn't think so.
Kuwaitis, Saudis, Uzbeks have no say in who governs them and live under a regime that makes Iran look like heaven. I don't see you complain one iota about regime change in those places. Why? A 10-year-old could see why.

Incidentally, I wonder how Iran's Jewish community, the largest in the Middle East outside of Israel, are coping with these sanctions. They're probably expressing even more revulsion for Israel and more pride in their beloved Iran than they did back when western gobsh!tes were trying to spoof the world that Ahmedinejad wanted Israel "wiped off the map".