UK: we want Iran sanctions to hit people

Source : Press TV
Date : October 7 , 2012
Link : www.presstv.ir...

The article points out the hardship that Iranians are facing due to Western embargo . The British defence secretary says current sanctions are not sufficient . He wants more strict economic sanctions to make the pain much greater . Meanwhile UN secretary general has condemned such sanctions which are hitting the people very hard .

Philip Hammond :We can definitely make the pain much greater

This comes as there are more grounds to believe Hammond is lying rather than Tehran as the latter is pursuing all its nuclear activities under the close inspection of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and that the agency has never offered any evidence on a deviation in Iran’s civilian nuclear activities

“There is talk of a general trade embargo and of shutting down the remaining access that Iran has to international banking channels,” Hammond said.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has also condemned the western embargoes saying they have affected people’s livelihood and impeded patient’s access to much needed medicine.

The British Defense Secretary has acknowledged that the western sanctions on Iran are targeted at the livelihood of the ordinary people, which he said are necessary so that Tehran feels an “existential threat” from economic pressure and ends its nuclear activities.

reply to post by synapsis


Basically they want to foam mint a revolution... like they have done to other Islamic nations and have been trying to do to Iran for a long time now.

I am so fed up of our government being the bullying bad guys! grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
The people they are hurting have done nothing wrong and just want to get on with their lives just like we do. Maybe this is a tactic to cause internal unrest and get the people to rise up against the Iranian government through frustration and desperation, where upon they can use the 'humanitarian aid' boot boy card and muscle their way in like they did in Libya in order to take over.

reply to post by Socrato

Edit: by the time I typed this and posted I see you have come to the same conclusion.

Sanctions don't work, all they do is starve the people of a nation, Cuba is a great example of the ineffectiveness of sanctions, for if they worked Fidel Castro's regime would have been gone long ago but instead the innocent people of Cuba are the ones who suffer, such is the case with Iran and Iraq before it.

Yeah how morally upstanding are the UK rulers-They actually want the average iranian,including the innocent children and those who disagree with their government to starve suffer and die if need be,all in order to put pressure on the leaders of Iran.

How sick is that?

I want no part of this as a UK citizen.

I totally disagree with making the innocent suffer just because they have a "bad"government.

WTF have these kids done to deserve that we in the west have the right to starve them?






Who exatlly are the "bad"guys here I ask myself?

No matter how heavily they pour on the sanctions, the people at the top are not going to do without. They will be living high on the hog regardless of what is done to the nation externally.

Of course it is the common person who will suffer, the ones that have nothing to do with this in the first place. A misguided philosophy to punish them further for something that is beyond their control, IMO.

I understand the reasons for the UK / USA / UN etc objection to Iran's nuclear weapon development programme and I agree that they can not be allowed weapon capability.

That being said I think Iran has every right to develop a nuclear power programme.

But I have always had reservations about the effects of sanctions on the ordinary, eveyday Iranian people.
Does anyone really think that the mullahs and any of Ahmadinejad's administration will be suffering in any way whatsoever?
And does anyone really think that these sanctions will hinder Iranian nuclear weapon development?

Maybe these sanctions will ultimately have some sort of effect on Iranian policy - but at what cost?
The human suffering that these sanctions may eventually cause could be absolutely horrendous and have a devestating effect on ordinary Iranians for another generation or two.

Obviously I'm not privy to all the negotiations that have taken place but perhaps Iran would have been more receptive if the UK / USA / UN had demanded a cessation of the weapon development programme whilst taking a far more concilliatory stance on the development of a domestic Iranian nuclear power programme - would it have harmed to generate investment and offer technical assistance?
It's such an obvious approach that maybe they did and they were rebuffed and I simply haven't heard about it?
Maybe I'm just being naive and simplistic again?

As much as I dislike and distrust the Iranian government etc I do however wonder if these sanctions are more intended to bring about regime change rather than their stated aim.

Whatever the truth, the fact remains that it is the ordinary Iranian who is suffering the most and I've got to say that doesn't quite sit right with me.

It's normally children who suffer th most with sanctions. The ones who don't even know they are Iranian. The effects of sanctions in Iraq caused child mortality rates to rise and over 500,000 children died as an effect of those sanctions. Have a look on the Internet about the effects of those sanctions in Iraq. There are plenty of reputable sources who recorded the effects.

Originally posted by Freeborn
Obviously I'm not privy to all the negotiations that have taken place but perhaps Iran would have been more receptive if the UK / USA / UN had demanded a cessation of the weapon development programme whilst taking a far more concilliatory stance on the development of a domestic Iranian nuclear power programme - would it have harmed to generate investment and offer technical assistance?
It's such an obvious approach that maybe they did and they were rebuffed and I simply haven't heard about it?
Maybe I'm just being naive and simplistic again?

I believe this was offered years back (and pre-Revolution Iran had such an arrangement with the US), but it was rebuffed as Iran felt they wouldn't have control over the fuel cycle, which isn't really needed for civilian use, but is obviously needed for weapons.

A refusal to budge on this is what led to the breakdown in negotiations around 2006-2007 I think. Now, had Iran taken the offer, shown it could be trusted and not build bombs, we may have then helped them with the fuel cycle side of life, but they wanted it all.

Let's also not forget that the entire project is under the control of the IRG.

Originally posted by Freeborn
As much as I dislike and distrust the Iranian government etc I do however wonder if these sanctions are more intended to bring about regime change rather than their stated aim.

Of course it is. We saw a couple of years back that many Iranians are unhappy with the regime and even today, many float the strict Islamic laws forced upon them. It isn't in their nature to be like this, they are historically quite a freedom loving, fun-loving people, not quite as uptight as the Arabs that conquered them and forced Islam upon them. The thinking is probably to try and force internal change by making the average Iranian sit up and say "bollocks to this" and do something, rather than us have to wade in and cause a right mess.

Originally posted by Freeborn
Whatever the truth, the fact remains that it is the ordinary Iranian who is suffering the most and I've got to say that doesn't quite sit right with me.

Unfortunately, that's always the way it goes. Don't forget, the Iranians are happy to do the same to you, after all, they would shut the straight of Hormuz in a heartbeat and what do you think that would to the cost of fuel, food and heating in the UK?

reply to post by stumason


So a minority of anti regime supporters justifies sanctions and starving the entire country? This has happened before in Iran and never guess who was behind it? The west. 1953 - 1979. Guess its just history repeating itself.

Unfortunately, that's always the way it goes. Don't forget, the Iranians are happy to do the same to you, after all, they would shut the straight of Hormuz in a heartbeat and what do you think that would to the cost of fuel, food and heating in the UK?

They have only brought the Strait of Hormuz up because of crippling sanctions. If anything, it is only a counter to what the west is trying to do in Iran. Before Iran were sanctioned, when did they mention closing the strait of hormuz just because they felt like pissing the rest of the world off? The west has been pissing the middle east off for decades and its still open.

Originally posted by Freeborn
I understand the reasons for the UK / USA / UN etc objection to Iran's nuclear weapon development programme and I agree that they can not be allowed weapon capability.

That being said I think Iran has every right to develop a nuclear power programme.

But I have always had reservations about the effects of sanctions on the ordinary, eveyday Iranian people.
Does anyone really think that the mullahs and any of Ahmadinejad's administration will be suffering in any way whatsoever?
And does anyone really think that these sanctions will hinder Iranian nuclear weapon development?

Maybe these sanctions will ultimately have some sort of effect on Iranian policy - but at what cost?
The human suffering that these sanctions may eventually cause could be absolutely horrendous and have a devestating effect on ordinary Iranians for another generation or two.

Obviously I'm not privy to all the negotiations that have taken place but perhaps Iran would have been more receptive if the UK / USA / UN had demanded a cessation of the weapon development programme whilst taking a far more concilliatory stance on the development of a domestic Iranian nuclear power programme - would it have harmed to generate investment and offer technical assistance?
It's such an obvious approach that maybe they did and they were rebuffed and I simply haven't heard about it?
Maybe I'm just being naive and simplistic again?

As much as I dislike and distrust the Iranian government etc I do however wonder if these sanctions are more intended to bring about regime change rather than their stated aim.

Whatever the truth, the fact remains that it is the ordinary Iranian who is suffering the most and I've got to say that doesn't quite sit right with me.

There is no objection to Iranian nuclear power.

There were many proposals which would allow them to have a flourishing nuclear power industry with the reactor fuel sold from abroad.

The argument is over the fuel route. The means by which Uranium is enriched. You can have a nuclear power industry without an indigenous uranium enrichment ability.

However you cannot have a nuclear weapon industry without one.

If they simply wanted nuclear power stations this would be a non issue resolved years ago.

reply to post by stumason

A refusal to budge on this is what led to the breakdown in negotiations around 2006-2007 I think.

No harm in making the offer again though is there?

Of course it is.

But what gives us the right to intefere and influence events in another country?

Imagine our outrage if another country tried the same here in the UK?

And if regime change is an intended purpose then we should at least be open and transparent about it.

We saw a couple of years back that many Iranians are unhappy with the regime and even today, many float the strict Islamic laws forced upon them.

Only this week there were riots as people demonstrated against the mullahs and their policies.

But there's a bit of a moral dilemna - I truly despise Ahmadinejad, the mullahs and all they represent and feel as if we should help the people of Iran free themselves, but what really gives us the right to interfere?
And then you have to consider the mess of things we make afterwards - Iraq is the prime example.

And again, it is those people we want to help who are suffering the most as a result of the sanctions.

As usual nothing is black and white - no easy answers and for once I don't envy those who have to make those decisions.

It isn't in their nature to be like this, they are historically quite a freedom loving, fun-loving people, not quite as uptight as the Arabs that conquered them and forced Islam upon them.

I know a few Iranians quite well - one of my good friends escaped from Iran when Khomieni first came to power, the rest more recently - and they are really good people.

Unfortunately, that's always the way it goes.

The way of the world - but it doesn't make it any a less bitter pill to swallow.

Don't forget, the Iranians are happy to do the same to you, after all, they would shut the straight of Hormuz in a heartbeat and what do you think that would to the cost of fuel, food and heating in the UK?

Yes, the mullahs would - and despite what many here would have us believe I'm not ignorant of their support of various terrorist organisations etc - but how many ordinary Iranians would want this?

I understand the need to be firm in our resolve to oppose the current Iranian administration and I fully agree that we can not allow them to develop nuclear weapon capability but that doesn't alter the fact that I am extremely uncomfortable with the level of human suffering we are causing as a result of these sanctions.

Originally posted by DarknStormy
So a minority of anti regime supporters justifies sanctions and starving the entire country? This has happened before in Iran and never guess who was behind it? The west. 1953 - 1979. Guess its just history repeating itself.

I never said it justified anything, just laying out how the thinking goes. That said, I think you'll find that more than a minority in Iran would love to see the back of the Islamic regime and have a proper, open and more liberal system.

Originally posted by DarknStormy
They have only brought the Strait of Hormuz up because of crippling sanctions. If anything, it is only a counter to what the west is trying to do in Iran. Before Iran were sanctioned, when did they mention closing the strait of hormuz just because they felt like pissing the rest of the world off? The west has been pissing the middle east off for decades and its still open.

Iran tried to do the same in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980's to shut off the Iraqi's funding, it's a tried and tested tactic of theirs.

As for Operation Ajax, I am well aware of that. Unfortunately for Iran, they sit in a very strategic position which affects the rest of us immensely, so if they don't get along with us, they can expect to be ruffed up. Not saying I agree with it or disagree, it's just the way it is. Don't think for a moment, however, that the Russians and Chinese don't play the same games.

The sanctions are working but not as the west intended. Iran is more or less directing the effects towards the middle classes and shielding the lower classes who are of course the biggest voting block. The majority of the protests you hear of are from these middle classes whose buy really nice things rial is being hit the most. The price of basics, food, medicine is being protected from inflation.

A side effect of this is that the people within Iran who would have the money, the influence, the means to affect regime change from within are having their power weakened by the very sanctions aimed at such a change. The sanctions are helping to strengthening Ahmadinejad's hold on the country rather than the reverse.

America has talked and talked and talked about Iran's liberation but when the people have revolted America is nowhere to be seen in terms of helping them achieve a true Democracy. They make remarks to their people more akin to a peewee baseball coach cheering on the next batter. Iran should not look to America for anything but words. America has had several opportunities to help the Iranian people when they revolted in a bid to change their government. They received nothing but words.

reply to post by jimmiec


It's not quite that simple though, is it?

What would you have America do, exactly? It would be interesting to hear as you seem to have an opinion on the matter.

Would have them invade to support the rioters from a few years back? Air strikes? Send aid? What?

All of which have massive negative connotations, no matter the intention. Then there is the geo-politics of such actions and how they would play out..

Please, enlighten us as to the way forward. You seem to have all the answers...

i am an english man and i say not in my name ,i think that the majority of british people would agree with me .

here in the uk we have a government of treasonal cowards that have no respect for the british people

they drag us into wars that the british public do not want or agree with, they bow down to the requests of the usa
and even impliment the dictates of brussells that are detrimental to the british people and our way of life .

here in the uk we don't have a true government we have a dictatorship .

and god help us but i think it will not get any better until we get some mp,s that actualy want to act in our interest and do so .

Look at who suffers. It's always the young, babies who can't get their medicines will start the death count.



Madeleine Albright Defends the Mass-Murder of 500,000 Iraqi Children through sanctions.

reply to post by tom.farnhill


Treasonable, back stabbing cowards they may be, but a Dictatorship it is not.

Let's try to remain level headed and not give into nonsense, shall we? It's like the people who say the UK is a Police State... Honestly, go live in a real Police State of Dictatorship, like the old East Germany or North Korea, or even China and then say the UK is a dictatorship...

Let's keep some perspective.

reply to post by tom.farnhill


There is much that I dislike about our politicians and the system they represent and seek to maintain and I genuinely fear for the future - but a dictatorship we are most definately not.

Until the British people wake up out of their apathy and almost catatonic state there is no hope of changing the unrepresentative and outdated system that blatantly disregards the interests and wishes of the majority - we are great at whinging and moaning but seemingly incapable or unwilling to effect real change - but that's another discussion.

As much as I dislike sanctions and the effects it has on ordinary Iranians no-one seems to have a viable alternative.

As for regime change - obviously it's desirable - but morally what gives us the right to interfere - but also at what point do we stop ignoring the threat they pose on various fronts?

No easy answers, and like I said, for once I don't envy the politicians and diplomats for the decisions they have to make - I just expect a certain amount of honesty and transparency from them - though I guess that would be little solace for the ordinary Iranians who will suffer no matter what.