mushroom cloud

Can we take that to mean, Dax, that you would only support efforts to remove any Iranian nuclear arsenal and do not support efforts to prevent the aquisition of one?

I don't support a nucular (Bush) capable Iran any more than I support the scare tactics of Chenynesque doomsday.

I despise politics by fear, and those who intend to frighten us into submission to their will.

The entire neocon agenda since 9/11 has capitalized on this fear, and essentially succeeded. Just not with me. I don't buy it, and while there are plausible reasons to take out Iran's nukes, a mushroom cloud is not one of them.

I've lived through the Communists Will Take Over scare, and I've lived through the Domino Theory, and the FIght them There or We'll Fight Them Here, and it's all the same bullshit, cut from the same cloth.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...none of that is responsive to the question, Dax.

I asked at what point do we decide we have done as much as we can diplomatically and must either concede defeat or resort to force? Iran is indisputably pursuing a nuclear program about which the world---not just the US---has serious reservations. The Iranians have repeatedly said they are not going to stop doing what they are doing...regardless of what we say or offer. So, where does that leave us? Do we shut up and accept a nuclear armed Iran or do we do something to prevent it?

I don't know, Law. Although I don't think that trade sanctions really work, as a result of them, Iran is having trouble with exports. Since its major export is oil, perhaps a total shut-down of oil imports from Iran could be the next step.

The entire world economy has been affected by the cost of crude. In the US, the sales of high-priced, low-efficient automobiles has dropped dramatically. We've shown we can do it--but what we've done is really short-term and in response to panic. If we could honestly keep up with the changes we need to make in order to end our reliance on fossil fuels, we could, perhaps, cut off the crude imports from Iran. As far as I can see, this would be the only way to bring Iran to a negotiating table.

Cutting off crude imports from Iran is impossible, or perhaps I should say totally ineffective. Oil distribution is a huge network of ships. Sources and destinations are flexible and the routes are not fixed. If we were to not buy from Iran directly, the oil that we would have bought will go to another country (say Canada) and the oil that would have gone to Canada from from somewhere else (say Venezuela), would come here. No pain and no gain for anyone.

Did you know that by far the bulk of Alaskan crude doesn't come to the US? West Coast Refineries aren't set up for it. It just gets sent out over the shipping network.

Would it be possible for the world to stop crude imports from Iran? Probably not, but I still think it's the only 'sanction' left that would mean anything.

As I understand it, the UN was established in order to stop war. Wouldn't a world-wide boycott of Iranian oil stop a possible war?

Stopping EXPORTS from Iran is the only thing that might work, but getting a world-wide boycott of Iranian oil is somewhere between extremely unlikely to impossible. That leaves only bombing their pipelines, etc. That too is unlikely for a world-wide action, but only too possible for a US action, at least under the present administration. This time around, Congress would probably not support it, if asked.

Iran can try to export all it wants to--if no one buys (i.e., imports) those exports, wouldn't that be an effective trade sanction? Isn't this what the UN is supposed to do--stave off war rather than sanction it?

That is an idealistic solution, Liz. it is however one that is rather unlikely. The Chinese for instance are rather unlikely to support it. Even if the rest of the world said no to Iranian crude, the Chinese would likely say yes, yes, yes. Even if you got the ENTIRE world to agree, I do not think it would change the Iranian position. We would still be forced to address the issue of an Iranian nuclear program.