# 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:** 25
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/481 "2013-12-19T02:44:29Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > They are clowns for wanting to add new sanctions beyond the sanctions that already exist after Iran began signaling a moderation of their position. > > Obama opposes flat out and unequivocally objects to any notion or desire that new and tougher sanctions should be added. He actually won the latest round in the Senate on that. So good for him that he has kept the clowns at bay for now. > > So still what was your point? Obama added companies to the list of those sanctioned. That would be an increase in the number of companies sanctioned. Which means less money coming into Iran which was the purpose of the agreement. [This is how Iran sees Obama](http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/2/9/7/7/4/9/gtg-39200160959.jpeg). ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/482 "2013-12-19T03:14:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The letter didn’t acknowledge a “softening” of Iran’s position. It acknowledged a pledge by Rouhani to re-engage in negotiations, but it clearly noted that “Iran’s position” is set by Khamenei, not Rouhani. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > In what universe is this not acknowledging a softening of Iran’s position on it nuclear program? > > That certainly is not a ‘hardening’ of position. It is definitely a change of position. That leaves ‘softening’ as one of the most apt position unless someone just wants to say silly things. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Rouhani doesn’t set nuclear policy. Khamenei does. It’s no more complicated than that. > > And Rouhani is not a “moderate”. He’s a hardliner who’s a little less hard line than some. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I agree with your first seven words. Khamenei obviously approved more transparency as Rouhani pledged. > > So are you telling us that those 76 Senators were right in August to call for tougher sanctions before Rouhani and Khamenei had a chance to demonstrate whether their offer of transparency and cooperation could be considered genuine or not? > [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, it was not clear that Khamenei approved that back in August. > I disagree with them, so no I don’t think they were right. What I think is that this is not a black and white issue and reasonable people can hold different views. I also think a lot of those Senators may know more about this issue than I do, so I’m not ready to presume they are acting out of bad faith. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > When you have a “Supreme Leader”, it actually isn’t very complicated. That title isn’t honorary or inaccurate. What he says goes. It’s generally understood that he allows the president some flexibility in dealing with internal matters, but not matters of foreign policy. If I’m wrong, I’m open to being corrected. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > First of all, I said it’s unclear whether he had Khamenei’s approval when he spoke early on. Not everything is black and white. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. I don’t think Rouhani has to get a blessing from Khamenei for everything he says. However, you claimed he had Khamenei’s approval for this. What is your evidence for that? You originated the idea that Iranian policy (the discussion was regarding August of this year not after the deal was announced) was set by Khomeini not Rouhani. So cite the evidence of that yourself. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/483 "2013-12-19T03:30:03Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Obama added companies to the list of those sanctioned. That would be an increase in the number of companies sanctioned. Which means less money coming into Iran which was the purpose of the agreement. > > [This is how Iran sees Obama](http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/2/9/7/7/4/9/gtg-39200160959.jpeg). That was not the purpose of the agreement to ignore companies that violate the existing sanctions. Where do you get that the purpose of the agreement was to give Iran more money by violating the existing sanctions. That is silly. Very silly. Show us where our side agreed to ignore violations of existing sanctions for the next six months. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/484 "2013-12-19T03:46:25Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You originated the idea that Iranian policy (the discussion was regarding August of this year not after the deal was announced) was set by Khomeini not Rouhani. So cite the evidence of that yourself. Are you seriously demanding evidence that Iranian foreign policy is set by the Ayatollah Khamanei not Rouhani? Dude, that’s like demanding proof that under the Nazis foreign policy was determined by Hitler not Speer. You do understand how the Iranian government works don’t you? There’s a reason his official title is “the Supreme Leader” or, if you want to be a language Nazi, “the Supreme Guide”? Rouhani is just the President, only about the third or fourth most important government leader in Iran and he has no power when it comes to foreign policy. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/485 "2013-12-19T03:52:39Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > That was not the purpose of the agreement to ignore companies that violate the existing sanctions. Where do you get that the purpose of the agreement was to give Iran more money by violating the existing sanctions. That is silly. Very silly. Show us where our side agreed to ignore violations of existing sanctions for the next six months. The purpose of the agreement was to give Iran a financial break in return for a reduction of weapons grade material. And I already cited their feelings on what has transpired since the agreement. They are not happy for the obvious reason. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/486 "2013-12-19T04:20:06Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Are you seriously demanding evidence that Iranian foreign policy is set by the Ayatollah Khamanei not Rouhani? > > Dude, that’s like demanding proof that under the Nazis foreign policy was determined by Hitler not Speer. > > You do understand how the Iranian government works don’t you? > > There’s a reason his official title is “the Supreme Leader” or, if you want to be a language Nazi, “the Supreme Guide”? > > Rouhani is just the President, only about the third or fourth most important government leader in Iran and he has no power when it comes to foreign policy. No. That should answer your question. If you had read the entire exchange I posted you may have gotten the point I was making to Mace. Your last sentence is pretty much my original point to Mace that Khomeini backed the Iranian incoming President’s moves toward a cooperative and transparent nuclear policy. That backs my main argument that the 76 Senators that signed a letter in August to Obama demanding tougher new sanctions should have known with a high degree of certainty that the change toward moderation by Iran was approved by Khomeini in advance of that letter. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/487 "2013-12-19T11:27:59Z")
There’s Glory for you. :rolleyes: ---
**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 19, 2013, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/488 "2013-12-19T12:03:28Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You originated the idea that Iranian policy (the discussion was regarding August of this year not after the deal was announced) was set by Khomeini not Rouhani. So cite the evidence of that yourself. It’s been cited multiple times in this thread already. And you seem to be conflating some non-binding comments made by Rouhani in August with the actual signed deal that occurred just recently. Who knows whether Khamenei approved the former, but we all know he must have approved the latter. If you really want to debate whether Khamenei approved Rouhani’s comments in August (as opposed to saying _we don’t know for sure_), open another thread. I’m not going down that rat hole in this thread. It’s a minor point that doesn’t affect the topic of this thread. BTW, you’re really the only one here who cares about the letter in August. We’re discussing what should be done now. If you want to discuss the August letter, open another thread. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/489 "2013-12-19T13:29:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s been cited multiple times in this thread already. And you seem to be conflating some non-binding comments made by Rouhani in August with the actual signed deal that occurred just recently. Who knows whether Khamenei approved the former, but we all know he must have approved the latter. > > If you really want to debate whether Khamenei approved Rouhani’s comments in August (as opposed to saying _we don’t know for sure_), open another thread. I’m not going down that rat hole in this thread. It’s a minor point that doesn’t affect the topic of this thread. > > BTW, you’re really the only one here who cares about the letter in August. We’re discussing what should be done now. If you want to discuss the August letter, open another thread. That’s a hoot. There is a factual and relevant high degree of continuity in our respective arguments that begins with the pesident-elect Rouhani’s push for moderation on nukes, runs through the August letter and affects the current situation. The point made about Khameini earlier shows an interesting method in your debating style. You proposed as an argument that Khameini was involved in the softening of Iran’s position, but when I agreed with you on that as the text shows you then went down the path of perhaps Khameini was not involved early on. You obviously went there to contradict my argument because Khameini’s non-involvement somehow may be an excuse for those 76 Senators to write and sign the letter. So in effect your current wish to severe that part of the general discussion from the argument is indicative that I was correct anout the reality that the Senator’s did in fact acknowledge that they knew Iran, including Khameini, was behind the move to moderation and therefore had no real reason to be demanding tougher sanction at the start of Iran’s desire to open up diplomatic talks on resolving the nuclear issues. I was just setting the record straight on what we both put in writing here. What’s wrong with that? ---
**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 19, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/490 "2013-12-19T14:20:14Z")
What you seem to be missing is that I don’t care about the August letter. I care about what we do going forward. The August letter was written under entirely different circumstances than we find ourselves in today-- it’s history. ---
**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 19, 2013, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/491 "2013-12-19T15:26:27Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > One time Rouhani can act on his own in a certain reversal of dealing with the West with **Khomeini** ’s approval and another time Rouhani must have the Supreme leader’s approval before acting to reverse policy with the West in support of moderation. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > One time Rouhani can act on his own in a certain reversal of dealing with the West **without** **Khomeini** ’s approval and another time Rouhani must have the Supreme leader’s approval before acting to reverse policy with the West in support of moderation. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You originated the idea that Iranian policy (the discussion was regarding August of this year not after the deal was announced) was set by **Khomeini** not Rouhani. So cite the evidence of that yourself. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Your last sentence is pretty much my original point to Mace that **Khomeini** backed the Iranian incoming President’s moves toward a cooperative and transparent nuclear policy. That backs my main argument that the 76 Senators that signed a letter in August to Obama demanding tougher new sanctions should have known with a high degree of certainty that the change toward moderation by Iran was approved by **Khomeini** in advance of that letter. Your insights into US-Iranian relations is undercut by the fact that you keep referencing an Iranian leader who has been dead for two decades. This just in: Ruhollah Khomeini is still dead. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/492 "2013-12-19T15:26:43Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > There’s Glory for you. > > :rolleyes: Rolleyes? I realize it is difficult to admit that I have a point that cannot be disputed. So thanks for that at least. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/493 "2013-12-19T15:33:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Your insights into US-Iranian relations is undercut by the fact that you keep referencing an Iranian leader who has been dead for two decades. > > This just in: Ruhollah Khomeini is still dead. I’m talking about the alive one, inadvertant error aside. And you know it and cannot argue against the points I’ve made. If you can dispute my points please do so now that I have accepted your minor correction. A recent statement from me: “The point made about Khameini earlier shows an interesting method in your debating style. You proposed…” ---
**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 19, 2013, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/494 "2013-12-19T15:47:08Z")
The only point I can discern that you are making is that Obama is always right. Most people aren’t very interested in that sort of a discussion. ---
**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 19, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/495 "2013-12-19T16:31:56Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I’m talking about the alive one, inadvertant error aside. And you know it and cannot argue against the points I’ve made. If you can dispute my points please do so now that I have accepted your minor correction. “You cannot refute my views on basketball, setting side how many touchdowns I said that Wayne Gretzky pitched.” Gotcha. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/496 "2013-12-19T18:54:09Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > …You do understand how the Iranian government works don’t you?.. Speaking for myself, no, no I don’t. And to be needlessly frank, I view with skepticism anyone who claims to. ---
**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 19, 2013, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/497 "2013-12-19T19:09:48Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Speaking for myself, no, no I don’t. And to be needlessly frank, I view with skepticism anyone who claims to. Water, fire, air and dirt F—ng magnets, how do they work? And I don’t wanna talk to a scientist Y’all m-----f—s lying, and getting me pissed. ---
**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 19, 2013, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/498 "2013-12-19T19:53:31Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > still not a bill. Now there is both an amendment and a [bill.](http://news.yahoo.com/u-senators-introduce-bill-iran-sanctions-192847044.html) Has my point been proven yet? ---
**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 19, 2013, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/499 "2013-12-19T21:35:19Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Speaking for myself, no, no I don’t. And to be needlessly frank, I view with skepticism anyone who claims to. I-a-tol-ya exactly how it works. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/500 "2013-12-19T23:02:37Z")
I am willing to offer a conjecture. Its the people, stupid. In the beginning, like so many revolutionary regimes, they installed the tyranny most unlike the tyranny they just overthrew. And there was no problem with setting up a strictly theological governance, because everybody was singing from the same Muslim page. But that was then. While it is true that the _mullahs_ still control the process by refusing to allow candidates they regard as too diverse and secular, nonetheless, the electorate favors the most moderate candidate available to them. At least of late. I will hazard the wild guess that this is the very source of recent changes in Iran’s foreign policy. As well, Iran’s population is trending younger: > [@](#): > > …More than half of Iran’s population is under 35 years old (2012)… > **[Demographics of Iran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iran)** > > Iran's population increased dramatically during the later half of the 20th century, reaching about 80 million by 2016. As of November 2024\[update\], Iran's population is around 91.5 million. In recent years, however, Iran's birth rate has dropped significantly. Studies project that Iran's rate of population growth will continue to slow until it stabilises above 100 million by 2050. Half of Iran's population was under 35 years old in 2012. As of January 2025, the average age of th In 2009, the... The tentative conclusion I draw, pending correction from the esteemed **Ravenman** , is that they do not share their elder’s memory of the theocracy as liberators from the wretched tyranny of the Shah, but think of them more as the reason they don’t make enough money to get married, why they cannot be corrupted by the blasphemies of Lennon/McCartney. Would we be having even this tentative thaw if that were not the case? And doesn’t it appear obvious that the best way to encourage this trend is offer Iran the most benign face we can muster? “Great Satan?” we ask, as we don our best Mr. Rogers’ sweater, “who, us?” A further demonstration would be to stuff a cork in Mr. John Bolton’s pie hole. (Perhaps one as well for his nether orifice, he’s talked out of his ass before, no reason to risk it.) If two longstanding enemies are to find peace, risks must be taken, peace must be given a chance. I suggest that the heavier burden falls to the more advanced and powerful of the two. Our democracy is a fucking mess that is only a hundred times better than theirs. As for raw power, well, hardly needs be said, does it? We should demonstrate our commitment to peace by a calm and steady forbearance. We cannot be insulted by their difficulty in trusting us, we have given them scant reason to do so. And even with the better intentions, the chances are slim, a hundred things to go wrong and only one to go right. And some risk, of course. But when you have an armored division and the other guy is still trying to make a functional crossbow, you can afford a bit of patience. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300.md?page=26)