Sanctions Policy: Effective or Not?
Published in Jame Jam
(Iran) on 5 December 2010
by Mohammad Safari (link to original)
When the National Security Council adopted sanctions, and after the U.S. acted unilaterally to impose sanctions, the point was consistently emphasized that sanctions would have no affect on Iran. These statements were made by U.S. and European officials.
At the same time, the question was asked: What options are there other than sanctions? The West and the U.S. have imposed embargoes, time has passed, and they still announce that boycotts against Iran are not effective.
The Zionist regime was in unison in considering the direction taken. They questioned the effect of sanctions from the beginning, insisting on the next option — that is, military action against Iran.
However, many of the parameters of this policy have not been effective against Iran.
Although the sanctions imposed by the West have not had the intended effect, and the officials of our country (Iran) have repeatedly emphasized that necessary arrangements to deal with boycotts have been considered, the important point is that social investigations have shown that the people haven't felt the effect of the sanctions.
However, the change in tone of American officials began with a statement by U.S. Under Secretary of State William Burns. He claimed that the impact of sanctions on Iran is clear.
But this policy of intimidation was not efficient, and now the effect of sanctions as psychological warfare against Iran has begun.
In addition, yesterday, an American diplomat claimed in the same vein that boycotts against Iran’s nuclear program have had an impact, and that now this country faces problems in the nuclear field.
Hillary Clinton has claimed that Iran has suffered from the sanctions and for this reason returned to the negotiating table.
However, the fact that Iran’s nuclear activity is en route to development and continues to be in motion, uninfluenced by boycott propaganda, suggests the conclusion that sanction policies are ineffective and face defeat.
At the same time, the question was asked: What options are there other than sanctions? The West and the U.S. have imposed embargoes, time has passed, and they still announce that boycotts against Iran are not effective.
The Zionist regime was in unison in considering the direction taken. They questioned the effect of sanctions from the beginning, insisting on the next option — that is, military action against Iran.
However, many of the parameters of this policy have not been effective against Iran.
Although the sanctions imposed by the West have not had the intended effect, and the officials of our country (Iran) have repeatedly emphasized that necessary arrangements to deal with boycotts have been considered, the important point is that social investigations have shown that the people haven't felt the effect of the sanctions.
However, the change in tone of American officials began with a statement by U.S. Under Secretary of State William Burns. He claimed that the impact of sanctions on Iran is clear.
But this policy of intimidation was not efficient, and now the effect of sanctions as psychological warfare against Iran has begun.
In addition, yesterday, an American diplomat claimed in the same vein that boycotts against Iran’s nuclear program have had an impact, and that now this country faces problems in the nuclear field.
Hillary Clinton has claimed that Iran has suffered from the sanctions and for this reason returned to the negotiating table.
However, the fact that Iran’s nuclear activity is en route to development and continues to be in motion, uninfluenced by boycott propaganda, suggests the conclusion that sanction policies are ineffective and face defeat.