Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So Obama has claimed the idea that engaging in business with countries as a way to transform them rather than using sanctions or the military for his own and labeled it the Obama Doctrine, and the neoconservatives are pissed.

Why don't republicans believe in the transformative power of capitalism? When did republicans come to hate capitalism?

Maybe Republicans don't believe in the transformative power of capitalism, but rather in rich people, and where a country has too many poor people and not enough rich people, bombing will help restore a more favorable balance.

Or not. Just a thought.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe Republicans don't believe in the transformative power of capitalism, but rather in rich people, and where a country has too many poor people and not enough rich people, bombing will help restore a more favorable balance.

Or not. Just a thought.

Much as I support Obama's efforts in Iran, this exchange is just echo-chamber b.s.

I'll leave aside the "bomb the poor" silliness. Instead, I would guess that both you and GGG have supported sanctions, versus the transformative power of a business relationship, in certain instances, in particular instances -- especially with respect to apartheid South Africa. So you and I could be accused of the same flip-flop as the GOP is engaging in, by supporting that sort of engagement with respect to Iran (and Cuba).

So, why? What makes these cases different?

For Cuba, it's that sanctions failed, the country poses no threat, and there is a real opportunity for constructive engagement through business and capitalism, because they might benefit the Cuban people broadly (and there's the leadership-transition issue).

For Iran, it's different. Sanctions actually worked there, and brought the regime to a point of wanting to make concessions. Just because sanctions have worked, doesn't mean that more sanctions is the right call; instead, we should reap the benefit here. If this deal closes, Iran will be further away from acquiring nukes than it is now (or was 8 years ago), and a verification regime will be in place. But the regime's power is such that I doubt we'll see a broad beneficial effect to capitalist engagement.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Much as I support Obama's efforts in Iran, this exchange is just echo-chamber b.s.

I'll leave aside the "bomb the poor" silliness. Instead, I would guess that both you and GGG have supported sanctions, versus the transformative power of a business relationship, in certain instances, in particular instances -- especially with respect to apartheid South Africa. So you and I could be accused of the same flip-flop as the GOP is engaging in, by supporting that sort of engagement with respect to Iran (and Cuba).

So, why? What makes these cases different?

For Cuba, it's that sanctions failed, the country poses no threat, and there is a real opportunity for constructive engagement through business and capitalism, because they might benefit the Cuban people broadly (and there's the leadership-transition issue).

For Iran, it's different. Sanctions actually worked there, and brought the regime to a point of wanting to make concessions. Just because sanctions have worked, doesn't mean that more sanctions is the right call; instead, we should reap the benefit here. If this deal closes, Iran will be further away from acquiring nukes than it is now (or was 8 years ago), and a verification regime will be in place. But the regime's power is such that I doubt we'll see a broad beneficial effect to capitalist engagement.

You know, there's a difference between a troll and an echo chamber.

Russia is a current hot-button sanctions issue, too. But the drop in oil prices may well be more effective than the sanctions. The most successful case of sanctions was indeed probably South Africa, but let's never kid ourselves into thinking sanctions alone would have done much.

I think sanctions (and boycotts) can be useful in the short term, but they have diminishing returns over time and if near-permanent can become counterproductive (see, Cuba).

Obama upped the sanctions on Iran and now is harvesting the rewards from taking them off. This is good diplomacy, using them where they work but relying on other levers for permanent gains.

I think encouraging the growth of Iranian capitalism can be huge and deeply transformative for Iran. But by capitalism I don't mean oil trading; I mean the same sort of thing that is going on in India with the help of the Indian diaspora can go on in Iran with the help of the Iranian diaspora. Can't wait to do some Iranian deals. And I know some Iranians who can't wait either.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You know, there's a difference between a troll and an echo chamber.

Fair point.

Russia is a current hot-button sanctions issue, too. But the drop in oil prices may well be more effective than the sanctions. The most successful case of sanctions was indeed probably South Africa, but let's never kid ourselves into thinking sanctions alone would have done much.

I agree that sanctions vs. Russia are not particularly meaningful. Disagree with respect to South Africa. It was the only real lever that we had, and it was effective from everything I've read and discussed. Though the oil embargo was more effective. What do you think caused white South Africans to turn the corner?

I think sanctions (and boycotts) can be useful in the short term, but they have diminishing returns over time and if near-permanent can become counterproductive (see, Cuba).

Obama upped the sanctions on Iran and now is harvesting the rewards from taking them off. This is good diplomacy, using them where they work but relying on other levers for permanent gains.

Yup. And on Cuba, sanctions policy was essentially useless and counterproductive for decades -- certainly since the fall of the USSR and probably before. Glad Obama had the balls to do what several other presidents should have done.

I think encouraging the growth of Iranian capitalism can be huge and deeply transformative for Iran. But by capitalism I don't mean oil trading; I mean the same sort of thing that is going on in India with the help of the Indian diaspora can go on in Iran with the help of the Iranian diaspora. Can't wait to do some Iranian deals. And I know some Iranians who can't wait either.

I hope you are right and I am wrong on this. I don't see the Ayatollahs loosening up. I also don't see any more Ahmedinejads being elected, the electorate generally shifting to more mainstream and rational candidates and that shift being helped by true capitalism -- BUT I fear the reaction to this will be more repression by the Ayatollahs.

Maybe they'll go for a variant on China's system -- open economy, closed (and much more religious) political system -- but I doubt it. Again, I hope I'm wrong.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I agree that sanctions vs. Russia are not particularly meaningful.

Actually, my understanding is that they are hurting the Russian economy fairly severely. But they are still secondary to the hit it is taking from the oil slide - we have the benefit of getting to kick them when they're down. As they recover, they'll be able to develop alternative suppliers for most things (e.g., China).

My point was simply that the sanctions are about number five or six on the list of clusterfucks Putin has to deal with.

Disagree with respect to South Africa. It was the only real lever that we had, and it was effective from everything I've read and discussed. Though the oil embargo was more effective. What do you think caused white South Africans to turn the corner?

Here, again, I think sanctions had their impact, but the real victory goes to the ANC and Mandela, who got change by bringing pressure every way you can, from sanctions to terrorism, on the government.

I hope you are right and I am wrong on this. I don't see the Ayatollahs loosening up. I also don't see any more Ahmedinejads being elected, the electorate generally shifting to more mainstream and rational candidates and that shift being helped by true capitalism -- BUT I fear the reaction to this will be more repression by the Ayatollahs.

There is a large and overwhelmingly optimistic Iranian ex-pat community that seems pretty confident of this. That's my barometer. They know better than we do. One rather humorous metric -- the relief of the ban on women attending certain sporting events was just loosened, but if you look at pictures of Iranian sporting events, women have been showing up for a while.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Here, again, I think sanctions had their impact, but the real victory goes to the ANC and Mandela, who got change by bringing pressure every way you can, from sanctions to terrorism, on the government.

No question -- we only played a supporting role. But on the list of options that was available to the US, sanctions was the most effective thing, and they were effective. (Okay, supporting the ANC far more fully would have been more effective, but for our own f'd up reasons that wasn't on the list until way too late.)

But, yes, the real victory is to the ANC and Mandela. But aren't you acknowledging that blowing things up can be productive (at least if it's part of a broader approach)?

There is a large and overwhelmingly optimistic Iranian ex-pat community that seems pretty confident of this. That's my barometer. They know better than we do.

I truly hope you are correct. I saw a similar wave of optimism for China during the Tiananmen protests, and that's what scares me. This is, certainly, a much longer arc, but I don't see the religious hard-liners giving up power or getting truly marginalized in the next couple of decades.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

But aren't you acknowledging that blowing things up can be productive (at least if it's part of a broader approach)?

Of course it can.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

No question -- we only played a supporting role. But on the list of options that was available to the US, sanctions was the most effective thing, and they were effective. (Okay, supporting the ANC far more fully would have been more effective, but for our own f'd up reasons that wasn't on the list until way too late.)

But, yes, the real victory is to the ANC and Mandela. But aren't you acknowledging that blowing things up can be productive (at least if it's part of a broader approach)?

I truly hope you are correct. I saw a similar wave of optimism for China during the Tiananmen protests, and that's what scares me. This is, certainly, a much longer arc, but I don't see the religious hard-liners giving up power or getting truly marginalized in the next couple of decades.

Let's face it, blowing things up can also be fun. Someday, I'll share some of the photos of long-haired me hanging out with Southern African revolutionaries back in the day.

The Iran deal is the right thing to do because it furthers our national interests, not because it is a recipe for regime change. But, the most interesting questions for a place like Iran are how its regime will evolve and change.

I think the younger generation in Iran seems like its going to be easier to work with and have less fundamentalist baggage than the same generation in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt, all places where the younguns seem to have a larger share of radicalized ideologues from what I can see (my sample is heavily twitter- and blog- based, so, look, it's wholly unscientific). And it may be easier to deal with old revolutionaries trying to run a country than new ones trying to take over one in any case.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'll leave aside the "bomb the poor" silliness.

I was being silly, and thought that was clear. But I also do not believe that Republican domestic or foreign policy is driven by a deep and abiding love for free markets -- I think that love for free markets is instrumental and convenient, and easily abandoned for other loves.

Instead, I would guess that both you and GGG have supported sanctions, versus the transformative power of a business relationship, in certain instances, in particular instances -- especially with respect to apartheid South Africa. So you and I could be accused of the same flip-flop as the GOP is engaging in, by supporting that sort of engagement with respect to Iran (and Cuba).

So, why? What makes these cases different?

Not following where I've flip-flopped. In general, I think economic incentives are a more powerful incentive to get people to do what you want them to do than bombing them is. I think we consistently overestimate just how helpful bombing will be in accomplishing our goals, though I also think some people in our society (e.g., rhymes with Thrill Pistol) just groove on bombing people.

For Cuba, it's that sanctions failed, the country poses no threat, and there is a real opportunity for constructive engagement through business and capitalism, because they might benefit the Cuban people broadly (and there's the leadership-transition issue).

For Iran, it's different. Sanctions actually worked there, and brought the regime to a point of wanting to make concessions. Just because sanctions have worked, doesn't mean that more sanctions is the right call; instead, we should reap the benefit here. If this deal closes, Iran will be further away from acquiring nukes than it is now (or was 8 years ago), and a verification regime will be in place. But the regime's power is such that I doubt we'll see a broad beneficial effect to capitalist engagement.

Also, in Iran, we managed multilateral sanctions, which worked in a big way. In Cuba, not so much. I hear a lot of Canadians are unhappy now that they'll be vacationing with Americans in Cuba.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not following where I've flip-flopped. In general, I think economic incentives are a more powerful incentive to get people to do what you want them to do than bombing them is. I think we consistently overestimate just how helpful bombing will be in accomplishing our goals, though I also think some people in our society (e.g., rhymes with Thrill Pistol) just groove on bombing people.

To be clear, I don't think you've flip-flopped, or that I have. I believed in sanctions vs. South Africa, and believed in them vs. Iran. I also believed in lifting them when they had accomplished their purpose, and engagement could work better.

Sorry to be cranky yesterday, this whole issue and the right-wing babble around it stress me out.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe Republicans don't believe in the transformative power of capitalism, but rather in rich people, and where a country has too many poor people and not enough rich people, bombing will help restore a more favorable balance.

Or not. Just a thought.

Burn, baby, burn.