So apparently the pro-Israeli lobby have continued pressuring US states to divest from companies that do business with Iran.
The funny thing about this "victory" is that it ultimately only hurts the US investors. As the head of Calpers -- California's public employee pension system - explained:
" 'International assets are a fifth of our portfolio,' said Charles Valdes, Investment Chair. 'This [divestment] bill would mean a potential divestment exceeding $8 billion – $6 billion in equity securities and $2 billion in bonds. The costs come in two forms. The first cost is an estimated $100 million to sell these investments, reinvest the proceeds, and reinvest back into those international companies some day. Our staff analysis shows that if we had not invested in some 50 affected companies over the past one, three, and five years, the loss would have been about $725 million,' he said. 'This loss would have to be made up by taxpayers through increased employer contributions.'
Back in December 2004, in an apparent moment of short-lived lucidity, Pres George Bush said of sanctions on Iran:
We're relying upon others, because we've sanctioned ourselves out of influence with Iran
Well, looks like the Obama administration is following the same tactic of shooting itself in the foot. I heard somewhere that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. Congratualtions, Obama!
More sanctions would make sense if they actually had any positive effect but instead they only boomerang :
Interestingly, the effectiveness of sanctions is directly tied to their perceived legitimacy. At a minimum, in order for sanctions to have any prospect of being effective, the general population of the sanctioned country must oppose the policy that is deemed objectionable by the sanctioning parties; the adopted sanctions must cause sufficient pain on the population of the sanctioned country to cause them to force a change in policy or a regime change; or the adopted sanctions must cause sufficient pain directly on the regime until it changes its objectionable policy. The adopted U.N. sanctions on Iran do not even remotely fulfill any of the above conditions, which in turn do not guarantee the success of sanctions. And the council’s actions against Iran’s nuclear program will serve to bolster the Iranian people’s support for the program and regime.
And even US government audit agencies quitely conceed that sanctions are ineffective:
New U.S. audit questions efficacy of Iran sanctions
Reuters Wed Jan 16, 2008
"U.S. officials and experts report that U.S. sanctions have specific impacts on Iran; however, the extent of such impacts is difficult to determine," said the report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, which was obtained by Reuters on Tuesday before its release later this week.
"Other evidence raises questions about the extent of reported economic impacts," it added.
But like I said in the past, the proponents of sanctions don't really care if the sanctions themselves are effective or not. They just want to put more obstacles in the way of any US-Iran rapprochement that would endanger Israel's ambitions in the region. As long as the US is sanctioning Iran, they're not talking to Iran -- making the pro-Israel crowd happy. If the sanctions are ineffective, they'll only pressure to increase and tighten them -- incrementally leading to confrontation, their real goal all along.
Thanks for this. It makes more sense when seen in context
Posted by: Ralph | December 03, 2009 at 10:49 AM