- 1
- 2
Before We Bomb Iran …
As the antiapartheid movement found, divestment helps put more starch in government sanctions. If the 400 or so European and Asian companies doing business in Iran were forced by global investors to withdraw, they would be upset about it, but less motivated to weaken sanctions imposed by their own countries. Isolation and the threat of economic collapse wouldn't necessarily drive the regime from power, as Gaffney thinks, but it could strengthen the opposition in ways that angry rhetoric from Washington won't.
How can Americans help encourage this movement? It isn't easy. (So far, there's only one self-described "terror free" mutual fund, the Roosevelt Anti-Terror Multi-Cap Fund). But divestment has the feeling of a movement whose time has come, if for no other reason than the alternative—war—will send oil over $100 a barrel and get a lot of Iranians (and, soon enough, Americans) killed.
Cheney & Co. have 15 months to persuade Bush to attack Iran, presumably because the next president will be too wimpy to do so. To stop them, the debate must shift from "bomb or do nothing" to a series of interim options. Divestment, Burlingame says, can be seen as both "putting the squeeze" on Iran and as a "peace initiative." That's why it appeals to both right and left, and fits the pragmatic spirit missing from so much of our reaction to 9/11.
© 2007
- 1
- 2
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: dahszil @ 10/31/2007 11:46:35 PM
Comment: After we overthrew the great democratically elected statesmen Mossadegh in circa 1953, we installed the Shah back on the throne with ultimate power in Iran.
Even though the cia has admitted to covertly making that regime change for access and control of Persian oil, the shah was feverishly developing plans for nuclear power. Oil is prohibitively expensive to make electricity from. Perhaps the Shah and now Ahmadinad's regime know something that the rest of us don't know-that Iranian petroleum "fields" are drying up quicker than any of us in the west want to acknowlege. An Iranian "bomb" has little to do with the upcoming Bush/ Cheney regime's bloody "liberation" of Iran.
Posted By: masherif @ 10/29/2007 6:00:26 PM
Comment: How could we be credible?
Sorry for my English. I come from the old Europe, as Mr. Rumsfeld said!
Following on NBC, Oct. 28, 2007 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21516968/). ???ElBaradei says he has no evidence Tehran is developing nuclear weapons. ... and expressed concern that escalating rhetoric from the U.S. could bring disaster. .. But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No. ... ElBaradei said he was worried about the growing rhetoric from the U.S., which he noted focused on Iran's alleged intentions to build a nuclear weapon rather than evidence the country was actively doing so. If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it. ... ???
Can we still remember a congruent story like this? Covering same logic before the Iraq war? Have we forgotten it? Why politicians in power can spread the same lie for many times, and why we believe them again and again? Do we really want peace? Why then are we following them? If we are so confident that this is not true? Is something wrong with us? And our politicians know well, that with us something is wrong? That we need tension, need the war and the killing rituals? So they can manipulate us, at any time they need? Yes, nuclear weapons, and indeed all weapons are dangerous and show how violent we are and how many of us prefer violence as a way to dominate others! Even the American policy has fallen in love with this ritual of war several times. To dominate others or to bring them democracy? Interesting is that the same politicians and states in which are hoarding these weapons suddenly realize their dangers. Is something wrong here? While USA, Russia, France, Pakistan, India, Israel, and others developing and deploying actual nuclear weapons!!! Still nothing wrong here? If nuclear weapons are so dangerous for Mr. Bush, why he and the other nuclear powers don not give example and begin to destroy them? Why they are not willing to concentrate efforts to create a serious way for all countries to follow it? Do you think they want this? The reality says no, they do not want this! Why? What these weapons for a purpose have? Is it the deterrence? But what does this exactly mean, deterrence? Does this also mean extortion of all those who do not have these weapons? The law of the strongest? The barbarity, the modern barbarism? Yes, I would like to see that in Iran a democracy can prevail, in Iraq too. In Syria, but also in friendly countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the world! Yes, the regime in Iran has not deserved support. But which country has become its freedom as a gift (even USA itself)? Exactly so little by a dictation from the outside, through the USA or any other power! This is just a different type of domination, a hidden, under the pretext of democracy!
Posted By: kevin estis @ 10/27/2007 11:53:20 AM
Comment: Divestment is the best bomb we can drop. Especially don't buy their oil, or, for that matter, any oil. Its way past time to remove it from our enrgy equation. No oil equals much less pollution, equals energy self reliance and no more oil wars.