# Iran: More sanctions now or wait? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 19, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300 "2013-11-19T22:23:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/221 "2013-12-03T22:34:41Z")
Would you call these resolutions “conciliatory gestures”? Are they indicative of a sincere desire to promote a peaceful resolution, or are they more in the line of a threat? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/222 "2013-12-03T23:13:08Z")
You offer limited choices. The threat of sanctions is not the threat of war. Reasonable people can disagree over the degree to which Iran needs to be prodded rather than enticed into scaling back its nuclear program. I lean more towards Obama’s approach myself, but I’m not ready to accuse those Senate Democrats who disagree with that approach as having belligerent motives. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2013, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/223 "2013-12-03T23:37:40Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Another vote for “wait.” Things might actually be moving in the right direction and I’d hate to see that get screwed up. As things continue to move in the right direction there is no need for what 76 Senators are doing. Why do it? Why not ‘wait’? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/224 "2013-12-04T00:56:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You offer limited choices. The threat of sanctions is not the threat of war. Reasonable people can disagree over the degree to which Iran needs to be prodded rather than enticed into scaling back its nuclear program. I lean more towards Obama’s approach myself, but I’m not ready to accuse those Senate Democrats who disagree with that approach as having belligerent motives. Didn’t say they did. Asked you if you considered these gestures to be conciliatory and encouraging. To my mind, they are clearly not, they are intended to underline a threat, a threat which has already been amply demonstrated in fact. As I said, I think it is little more than posturing, but in a delicate balance, posturing counts. Belligerence is not a required ingredient for disaster, simple misunderstanding is enough. Perhaps it is fair to say we have little enough reason to trust them, but have they any reason \*at all \*to trust us? Who have _they_ invaded lately? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/225 "2013-12-04T03:59:50Z")
Eh. If they want to be accepted back into the community of nations, then they do so on our terms, not theirs. If not, then they get more sanctions. This is Iran agains the World, not Iran against the US. It’s their choice. I know what I would choose if I were them. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/226 "2013-12-04T04:49:31Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > As things continue to move in the right direction there is no need for what 76 Senators are doing. Why do it? Why not ‘wait’? Again, the 76 senators signed the letter in August. Did you read the letter? It specifically said sanctions should be increased if Iran doesn’t slow - as opposed to terminate - it’s nuclear program. And it said that sanctions and the threat of force should continue as a diplomatic option is fully explored. The letter isn’t as extreme as you’re making it out to be, plus I will bet you anything that a decent number of those senators actually support the diplomatic path that’s been laid out. Others are certainly opposed to the agreement. So, those 76 senator aren’t calling for war. They aren’t calling for an end to the interim agreement. They aren’t even really doing anything as a group right now, as far as I can tell. You’re making it out like there is a cabal of 76 senators who are intent to stop the White House, and that is incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/227 "2013-12-04T08:46:14Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Again, the 76 senators signed the letter in August. Did you read the letter? It specifically said sanctions should be increased if Iran doesn’t slow - as opposed to terminate - it’s nuclear program. And it said that sanctions and the threat of force should continue as a diplomatic option is fully explored. > > The letter isn’t as extreme as you’re making it out to be, plus I will bet you anything that a decent number of those senators actually support the diplomatic path that’s been laid out. Others are certainly opposed to the agreement. > > So, those 76 senator aren’t calling for war. They aren’t calling for an end to the interim agreement. They aren’t even really doing anything as a group right now, as far as I can tell. You’re making it out like there is a cabal of 76 senators who are intent to stop the White House, and that is incorrect. No the Dems intent is not to stop the White House but they are going along with the opposition who are dedicated to stopping the White House at whatever they do. The Dems need to ask themselves whether any domestic political action taken by them harms or helps the peaceful and diplomatic solutions being sought by then White House. I don’t see how they can say they are helping. If it agitates the extremists in Iran to the point of shutting down the moderates then this agitates the possibility for war. The Dem Senators add nothing to the peace process when they join the opposite side on this who I believe truly seek to obstruct a major national security obtained by the current president. The question should be whether that letter is constructive to diplomacy or if it is not. If not, one who wants diplomacy to work should not have signed it. It is a slap in the face to the president to side with the opposition so blatantly and it reduces his negotiating posture in the eyes of the Iranians. These Dems make it appear that outside interests have more authority to negotiate than the President. Unless Obama is doing something obviously wrong his Dem Senators ought to have his back on this. They don’t. They are scurrying to the hawk infested right for cover when there is no need to at all. Again that letter or anything subsequent to it does no good in my mind. Dems should keep their distance from those who relish obstructing Obama’s every move. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/228 "2013-12-04T12:23:43Z")
Did you read the letter? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/229 "2013-12-04T14:08:52Z")
When the Democrats wrote that letter, there was no indication that diplomacy was working. You are conflating the situation as it exists now with the situation 5 months ago. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/230 "2013-12-04T18:56:00Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > No the Dems intent is not to stop the White House but they are going along with the opposition who are dedicated to stopping the White House at whatever they do. The Dems need to ask themselves whether any domestic political action taken by them harms or helps the peaceful and diplomatic solutions being sought by then White House. > > I don’t see how they can say they are helping. > > If it agitates the extremists in Iran to the point of shutting down the moderates then this agitates the possibility for war. The Dem Senators add nothing to the peace process when they join the opposite side on this who I believe truly seek to obstruct a major national security obtained by the current president. > > The question should be whether that letter is constructive to diplomacy or if it is not. If not, one who wants diplomacy to work should not have signed it. > > It is a slap in the face to the president to side with the opposition so blatantly and it reduces his negotiating posture in the eyes of the Iranians. > > These Dems make it appear that outside interests have more authority to negotiate than the President. > > Unless Obama is doing something obviously wrong his Dem Senators ought to have his back on this. > > They don’t. They are scurrying to the hawk infested right for cover when there is no need to at all. > > Again that letter or anything subsequent to it does no good in my mind. Dems should keep their distance from those who relish obstructing Obama’s every move. August. you’ve been told this multiple times. It was written before the agreement. And while you’re not reading what other people write might as well ask you again to cite outside interests influencing the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/231 "2013-12-05T12:08:14Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > August. you’ve been told this multiple times. It was written before the agreement. And while you’re not reading what other people write might as well ask you again to cite outside interests influencing the Senate. When the letter was written the White House was in negotiiations. My point centers on the detrimental effect the letter poses to the negotiations and to a peaceful solution. My point stands firmly relative to the date and timing of the letter. There was talk of passing something. The White House opposes it and it is explained in the WAPO report : > [@](#): > > The administration begged to differ. “Our view is that passing these sanctions during the life of the negotiations would complicate the negotiations in a number of ways,” said the senior official, speaking on the condition of anonymity as the administration embarks on the delicate effort to shift congressional views. > > After a new sanctions bill passed with near-unanimity in the House this summer, 76 senators, including Democratic stalwarts such as Barbara A. Mikulski (Md.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) and Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), along with conservative Republicans such as Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), signed a letter urging Obama to take tougher action against Iran, even as a new Iranian president declared a willingness for serious negotiations. > > The Senate had agreed to an administration request to postpone a vote until after the most recent round of negotiations, which ended with the successful interim accord. > > Now, many see no reason not to move ahead. Schumer, in a statement after the accord was announced, said a new sanctions package could pass this month. Menendez said that is also his goal, adding that the measure could be appended to legislation such as the pending defense appropriations bill, making it difficult for Obama to veto. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/232 "2013-12-05T14:48:03Z")
Yes, we know the WH opposed it. You offer that info as if it were some unassailable truth. That if the WH opposed it, it must be wrong. But reasonable people can disagree about that. Many of these Senators have been watching these “negotiations” for a decade. I, for one, am not going to claim that my view is the only way and that anyone who disagrees with me is calling for war. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/233 "2013-12-05T15:03:46Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > When the letter was written the White House was in negotiiations. There were apparently secret negotatiations ongoing for some time, but there’s no evidence to suggest that these 76 senators knew those negotiations were happening. Do you have evidence that they knew? In any case, the first phone call between Obama and Rouhani occurred in September, well after the letter was written. That phone call apparently led to the negotiations in Geneva. > [@](#): > > **My point centers on the detrimental effect the letter poses to the negotiations** and to a peaceful solution. My point stands firmly relative to the date and timing of the letter. Once again, DID YOU READ THE LETTER??? I’ve already addressed the timing of the letter. Unless you have some evidence that 76 senators were trying to influence negotiations that I’m guessing they probably didn’t know about, your point about the date and timing of the letter appears to be a pretty substantial error. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/234 "2013-12-06T21:03:52Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > There were apparently secret negotatiations ongoing for some time, but there’s no evidence to suggest that these 76 senators knew those negotiations were happening. Do you have evidence that they knew? > > In any case, the first phone call between Obama and Rouhani occurred in September, well after the letter was written. That phone call apparently led to the negotiations in Geneva. > Once again, DID YOU READ THE LETTER??? > > I’ve already addressed the timing of the letter. Unless you have some evidence that 76 senators were trying to influence negotiations that I’m guessing they probably didn’t know about, your point about the date and timing of the letter appears to be a pretty substantial error. As I said the timing of the letter does not affect my point that the letter accomplishes nothing constructive for negotiations whether they were private and public, Dems should let the Republicans do their un-constructive work and firmly avoid aiding and abetting what ckearly is an attempt to disrupt moves to moderation taking place in Iran. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/235 "2013-12-06T21:25:44Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > As I said the timing of the letter does not affect my point that the letter accomplishes nothing constructive for negotiations whether they were private and public, > > Dems should let the Republicans do their un-constructive work and firmly avoid aiding and abetting what ckearly is an attempt to disrupt moves to moderation taking place in Iran. So, no one should ever propose sanctions for any country since there might be some secret negotiations going on that they don’t know about. Got it. Because, as was stressed over and over and over, no one in the Senate knew there were _any negotiations going on at all_ when the letter was drafted. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/236 "2013-12-06T21:53:36Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > As I said the timing of the letter does not affect my point that the letter accomplishes nothing constructive for negotiations whether they were private and public, > > Dems should let the Republicans do their un-constructive work and firmly avoid aiding and abetting what ckearly is an attempt to disrupt moves to moderation taking place in Iran. Okay, you’ve answered my question by conspicuously avoiding an answer: it is pretty clear to me that you haven’t actually read the letter. I’ll just move on to my next question: How is it that you can characterize the letter as “un-constructive” when you never actually looked at what it says? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/237 "2013-12-06T23:28:45Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It’s not a model of the world. We’re discussing Iran. Iran doesn’t have a political base. It has a religious ruler. Iran is also the nearest thing to a functioning democracy in the MENA, apart from Israel. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/238 "2013-12-06T23:38:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, no one should ever propose sanctions for any country since there might be some secret negotiations going on that they don’t know about. Got it. Show me where I suggested any such thing. Who are you responding to? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/239 "2013-12-06T23:51:36Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Iran is also the nearest thing to a functioning democracy in the MENA, apart from Israel. What’s Turkey, chopped liver? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/240 "2013-12-06T23:53:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Okay, you’ve answered my question by conspicuously avoiding an answer: it is pretty clear to me that you haven’t actually read the letter. I’ll just move on to my next question: > > How is it that you can characterize the letter as “un-constructive” when you never actually looked at what it says? I read it and explained why it is un-constructive. It o [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300.md?page=13)