Throwing Ahmadinejad a Lifeline
NYtimes / HOSSEIN ASKARI and TRITA PARSI
19-Aug-2009 (4 comments)

In an effort to squeeze Iran into submission over its nuclear policy, Congress and the White House are edging toward a gasoline embargo. This would do nothing to force Iran into submission. In fact, it would be a blessing for the hard-line government to once again be able to point to a foreign threat to justify domestic repression and consolidate its base at a time when opposition to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is increasing among conservatives.

An effective gasoline embargo can only be implemented through a naval blockade. This would require U.N. Security Council approval — a tortuous process with no certain outcome. An embargo without U.N. approval is an act of war according to international law, and Iran has declared that it would be met with force.

But even if the Security Council were to miraculously unite, success would still be out of reach. The economics of a gasoline embargo simply doesn’t make sense. Iran imports roughly 40 percent of its domestic gasoline consumption at world prices and then sells it along with domestically refined gasoline at a government-subsidized price of about 40 cents per gallon. As a result, domestic gasoline consumption is high. It is also smuggled and sold to neighboring countries.

>>>
recommended by IRANdokht

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
Sassan2

Traitor Parsi is a master of spin

by Sassan2 on Thu Aug 20, 2009 03:23 AM PDT

This guy actually thinks he can fool people with this pack of blatant misinformation, half-truths, theories, and wishful thinking.

Let me illustrate:

Parsi writes," The sanctions would have done what Tehran has wanted to do for years and the government would not be held responsible!"

How the hell do you know that ordinary Iranians won't hold Ahmadinejad directly responible for putting the Iranian nation behind the eight ball? Do you have some sort of crystal ball?

Parsi continues, "Proponents of the embargo believe that increased economic pressure would cause Iranians to revolt against their unpopular rulers. This is a fundamental misreading of the psychology of an embargoed people... Iranians have seen much worse times. During the Iran-Iraq War, they faced unprecedented economic hardships. This did not ignite a popular uprising."

That's because Iran was physically invaded by Saddam Hussein back then, Khorramshahr was annexed by the Arabs, Ahvaz laid in ruins, Abadan was in great peril. Besides, that was then, this is now. The IRI has lost all shreds of legitimacy, whatever it had left. Much has changed since 1988. Neda has happened. Massive frauds have taken place. Institutional raping of men and women are the order of the day. This is not your father's IRI.

Parsi leaves his best for last, "If the back of the Iranian economy is broken, the first casualty will be hope. Economic misery will kill people’s faith in a better future. The result will be political apathy. And rather than blaming Mr. Ahmadinejad, Iranians are likely to blame the United States."

This is nothing more than conjecture, mere guesswork, if not wishful thinking. Iranians are more likely to blame the fraudulently elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose illegitimate governement is presently raping every man, woman and child in captivity.

Iranians are far more likely to blame their homegrown oppressors. You can take that to the bank! 

One can only wonder why some people (read: Parsi et al) are such treasonous hacks and whores. Why do they spin falsehood with such facility? They can't be this wrong all the time -- it has to be about money.


  •  
Hajminator

Fred,

by Hajminator on Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:54 AM PDT

Imposing blind sanctions to the Islamic rapists would have the reverse result of what one may expect. I was one of those who first thought that sanctions will effectively weaken the regime but that was before understanding a bit who were behind the coup-d’état and why.

There are several sources who agree in saying that Pasdarns orchestrated this coup. They have the economy of the country under their control, and now they want to control the politics. They see in Ahmadinejad the fall-guy who will help them to reach their goals.

General sanctions like sanctions on gasoline will just harm people. Do you think, one moment that if there are penury in gasoline, Passdarns will give their part to the civilians! Sanctions will serve to justify their barbaric acts and further they’ll create parallel market and sell the gazloine more expensive.

In my view, one has to take direct actions against this mafia by sanctioning their owned companies, … as people inside Iran have begun to do.


  •  
Bavafa

I think sanction will be

by Bavafa on Wed Aug 19, 2009 07:34 AM PDT

I think sanction will be good for Iran in a long term as it will the country to become more self sufficient but unfortunately it will be bad for Iran's democracy movement as the hardliners will have ever more reason to tighten their grip on any movement from within, which is the only legitimate type.

Now, if there was going to be more sanction I sure hope that Iran stops exporting oil and set up their own sanction in response

Mehrdad


  •  
Fred

How?

by Fred on Wed Aug 19, 2009 06:43 AM PDT

To avoid a devastating war that the Islamist Rapist Republic is hard at work to impose on the enslaved Iranians airtight sanctions are the last chance to weaken and overthrow the regime.

It is on the NIAC lobby to explain how exactly their announced mission of facilitating a full unfettered diplomatic, economic relationship with the Islamist Rapist Republic helps the beleaguered Iranian nation. 

The NIAC lobby has publically backed the “green movement” lead by Mosavi in Iran. Mosavi’s overseas representative is the filmmaker Makhmalbaf. The representative of the leader of the movement that NIAC lobby has publically backed has unambiguously called for sanction.

To date the leader of the movement that the NIAC lobby backs has not, repeat, has not refuted what his rep has asked for, that is sanction.

Now how can NIAC lobby back a movement and at the same time oppose its leader?

Attached video is of Babak Talebi of NIAC lobby, Trita Parsi is there too,  his exclusionary antic aside, professing the backing of the “green movement”?

 

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=och26QdEEF8&feature=related

 


  •