"I don’t bluff"

President Barack Obama says he means it when he insists it’s unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

This statement serves mainly as an occasion for journalistic review of the situation to date. By itself, what can it mean?

Does it mean that Obama is willing to launch an illegal war of aggression if Iran continues to enrich uranium? Does it maybe mean that he will somehow provoke Iran into making a move that he can interpret as an act of war against us? Does it mean he will not look too closely at a possible false flag attack conducted by Israeli agents? Does it mean an open break with international law covering wars of aggression largely framed by the US after WWII? Aren't all these possibilities already covered by "no options off the table"? What can "I don’t bluff" add?

A dangerous sanctions policy

Do sanctions work? The most comprehensive study comes from Kim Elliott, Jeffrey Schott, and Gary Hufbauer, fellows at the Institute for International Economics, a think tank with a free-market bent. A sanction "works," in the authors' formula, if it accomplishes the goals identified by U.S. policy-makers at the outset of a sanctions program, like ending apartheid in South Africa or undermining Libya's support of terrorism. Examining 35 U.S. sanctions programs in place since 1973, the study estimates they have succeeded 23 percent of the time.

Our best intelligence estimate is that, for the time being, Iran is not working on building a nuclear weapon. Frequently used coy phrases in the media like "nuclear activities" are references to uranium enrichment to low levels suitable for peaceful applications. Ending that, despite its legitimacy under the NPT as an "inalienable right". is the actual goal identified by U.S. policy-makers at the outset of the sanctions and which is likely to fail.

If sanctions fail better than 3 out of 4 times on average they are even more likely than that to fail in the case of Iran since what they aim to defeat is not a moral offense like apartheid or a dictatorial regime already fighting an active rebellion but a nuclear power program with broad support from the Iranian population. The signs of "success" being cited by the administration are only the damages being caused. There has been no effect on the actual "nuclear activities" other than attempts to shield them from military attack. The result of sanction failure in this case will either be war or Iran resorting to creating a nuclear deterrent which we will have to accept.

The sanctions policy simply isn't worth the risk. We should just aim for the best monitoring agreement we can get and allow Iran to go forward with their nuclear power program including low level enrichment.

WWIII

Those of you rooting for an Israel-Iran war with the US dragged in even while aware that either or both of the Iraq and Afghan adventures have been counterproductive, or at least disproportionately expensive in blood and treasure, better have your excuses and justifications ready when all hell breaks loose and even nominally friendly governments are overthrown in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and nuclear armed Pakistan. Wait till you see what happens in Lebanon, Syria and even Turkey. Then there is Chechnya and all the "stans" and Bosnia like tinder waiting for a new spark. What will NATO do? Russia? China? Not least of all, what will become of Israel?

Have any of you read or seen "Gone with the Wind"? The foolish Southerners were so sure that war would solve their problems with the Yankees.

The real WWIII, (not the stupid neocon fairy tale version), beckons. Everybody get ready.