The Folly of Sanctions
Many people have the misconception that sanctions are an effective means to encourage a change of behavior in another country without war. However, sanctions and blockades are not only acts of war according to international law, they are most often the first step toward a real war, starting with a bombing campaign. Sanctions were the first step in our wars against Iraq and Libya, and now more sanctions planned against Syria and Iran are leading down the same destructive path.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s latest report, just out this month, there is no evidence that Iran has diverted enriched uranium from the peaceful and lawful generation of power toward building a nuclear weapon. According to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has every right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Unfortunately, U.S. foreign policy has boxed Iran into a corner where they may view development of a nuclear weapon as the only way to maintain sovereignty. They are surrounded by unfriendly nuclear powers, and history has shown that having a nuclear weapon is the best way to avoid being bombed or invaded. The unintended consequences of our confrontational policies toward Iran may be to actually encourage them to seek nuclear weapons capabilities. We should be using diplomacy rather than threats and hostility.
Fortunately, there is another way. Nothing promotes peace better than free trade. Countries that trade with each other generally do not make war on each other, as both countries gain economic benefits they do not want to jeopardize. China is a massive nuclear power, yet it does not seek military confrontation with the United States. Trade is much more profitable. Also, trade and friendship apply much more effective persuasion to encourage better behavior, as does leading by example. Alarmingly, tough new sanctions are under consideration that would also punish Iran’s trading partners, including China, Russia, and possibly our NATO allies such as Germany.
Conversely, sanctions allow regimes to blame their shortcomings on foreigners, thereby maintaining a hold on power. They rarely even inconvenience elites in the target countries. They simply provide a common enemy to rally the people against and undermine internal dissent. Consider how well the embargo has worked against Cuba. Fidel Castro and his regime may be annoyed by the inability to trade with their neighbors just 90 miles away, but American businessmen also lose out in the bargain. That means less jobs and less freedom at home.
We should be clear about this: sanctions against Iran are definite steps toward a U.S. attack. Already we see U.S. warships approaching the region, moving dangerously close to Syrian waters. The tougher sanctions currently under consideration would disrupt global trade and undermine the U.S. economy, which in turn harms our national security. Foreign companies or foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies would be severely punished if they did not submit to the U.S. trade embargo on Iran. We must change our foreign policy to one of economic freedom and diplomacy. That is the only way to promote peace and prosperity. This race to war against Iran and Syria is both foolhardy and dangerous.
Read more by Rep. Ron Paul
- What No One Wants to Hear About Benghazi – May 13th, 2013
- Liberty Was Also Attacked in Boston – April 28th, 2013
- Congress Exploits Our Fears to Take Our Liberty – April 21st, 2013
- Why Can’t We All Travel To Cuba? – April 15th, 2013
- Neo-Con War Addiction Threatens Our Future – March 24th, 2013





mark
November 29th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
Dr. Ron Paul is a wonderfully fair and perceptive observer, a statesman, and he deserves to be elected President.
WhichWaldenPond
November 30th, 2011 at 12:54 am
Sanctions are a two-way punishment. When we block trade and commerce with another nation, they and we both suffer. It is a kind of economic chicken to see who can endure economic pain the longest. We have more money (we think). Iran has more right (they think). It is not certain that our (borrowed) money can last longer than their convictions of their inalienable right to develop nuclear technologies (which we agreed to in the Nuclear Non-Poliferation Treaty).
If we don't get our way, of course, then we get angry and self-righteous and start bombing nuclear reactors, in the Persian Gulf, from where comes half of the world's oil. Those bombing runs will be the last overseas military actions our government ever does, because the sudden, permanent jump in oil prices will destroy our oil-dependent society, and our military will be consumed in domestic deployment trying to control the chaos here at home.
Most Americans forget or never knew our history. During the Napoleonic Wars, the US initiated economic sanctions against the UK, because Britain was interfering with our commerce and was conscripting seaman off our merchant ships. The consequences were 1) the UK won the wars against Napoleon, 2) the US economy crashed, 3) the New England states convened the Hartford Convention to begin secession from the United States, and 4) the foundations for the War of 1812 were set. In other words, we were hurt more by our economic sanctions than was the target of those sanctions.
In our current situation, Iran sells oil and gas. The world needs oil and gas. No matter what we do, market forces will find a way for Iran to sell oil and gas and be paid for it. Corporations can make endless levels of front companies, foreign subsidiaries, etc., and can arrange payment in barter, IOU currencies, etc. faster than anyone can figure them out. The predictable costs to us for our sanctions against Iran will be higher gasoline prices in the USA, and a proliferation of corporate facade companies that will not only illegally trade oil, but once set up, illegally launder money, evade taxes, trade technology or weapons, and do other criminal activities.
Making commerce illegal is not good policy. Black market economies, smuggling, and other forms of criminal commerce are not created by the criminals but are created by governments when they try to make commerce illegal.
I am leftist, progressive on most domestic issues, but would nevertheless, like to see Ron Paul as US President, because he is honest, rational, and anti-war. An honest, rational. anti-war President would be a revolutionary change for America.
hypewaders
November 30th, 2011 at 1:54 am
We each may be unlikeky to agree with every position of Congressman Paul- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_…
Likewise every position of any given candidate. I have differences with Rep. Paul (generally concerning socialism and environmentalism) however:
USis may enjoy an opportunity next year to endorse by ballot a far more sane, accountable and Constitutional approach to foreign policy from the Executive Branch, than any other candidate is prepared to offer beside Ron Paul. Please carefully consider supporting Ron Paul with all influence you can muster throughout the crucial year ahead.
Ginger
November 30th, 2011 at 4:51 am
Putting aside all the benefits of "free trade," sanctions are war and kill people. Sanctions against Iraq resulted in a huge number of deaths of Iraqi children, whether it was 100,000 or 500,000, which Madeline Albright did not deny in asserting it was worth it. It led directly to other Muslims declaring a jihan against the U.S., along with the US occupying Saudi Arabia and the treatment of Palestinians.
liveload
November 30th, 2011 at 6:36 am
You can have the oil one of two ways:
A. Make a mutually beneficial agreement
B. Try to take it by force.
How well has option B worked for ya so far?
Bruce Richardson
November 30th, 2011 at 7:49 am
Ron Paul, the lone voice in Congress not beholden to the military-industrial complex and their quest for resource-domination and world-empire. The nuclear issue with Iran is a fraud. Not commonly known, in 1983, the U.S. gave a nuclear reactor and a quantity of fissionable material to Iran. Sooooo, the problem with Iran's nuclear program is based on what? In addition, Pushing the U.S. to attack Iran, Israel boasts some 300-plus nuclear tipped missiles, so why the panic and rampant propaganda over the fraudulent allegations that Iran is pursuing a weapon with which to deastroy Israel?
sam stone
November 30th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
No need to write lots of words. It’s about what Israel wants simple as that. It’s the leader of all the other rouge states, bought and paid for.
Brad_Smith2
November 30th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Ron Paul 2012
Walter Cole
November 30th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
"Iran has more right (they think)".
RIGHT IS MIGHT. Remember that one – everybody in America use to chant it, back between WW-II and Vietnam. The truth is, that it is totally correct. So, who is right? The people who believe they are right is the correct answer. That´s how we get our asses kicked by the poorest nations in the world.
Jerzy
December 1st, 2011 at 2:50 am
Mr. Ron Paul's article proposes what is the perfectly right solutions to the problems with Iran. Trade and openness with Iran will bring results like those actions toward China in the last couple decades. I do not know whether Mr. R. Paul is a God's believer, but I think his foreign policies would be closer to God's teachings than those policies of other hipocrytes on the american political scene. it would be excelent to see creation of permanenet multiparty system in the USA, where Mr. Paul could built his permanent and electable base; avoiding ignorance of the present "two party system". This multiparty system may emerge if the present ignorance and stupidity will continue in coming times.
Refugee from Poland – Jerzy.