Israel Violates Economic Sanctions Against Iran by Grant Smith — Antiwar.com
Economic sanctions don’t produce regime change in and of themselves. They mainly hurt the little people in places like Cuba or Iraq. And, they create black markets for the unscrupulous.
Obama Iran sanctions another buying opportunity for the Marc Riches of the world.
End/ (Not Continued)
I noticed an ad for Boeing's proposed Air Force tanker plane on the antiwar.com web page…
Back in 1960 the CIA estimated [PDF] that "Possession of a nuclear weapon capability, or even the prospect of achieving it, would clearly give Israel a greater sense of security, self-confidence, and assertiveness…Israel would be less inclined than ever to make concessions…"
I have said the same thing for years. "We" (and France) "Allowed" Israel to acquire the bomb, which although helpful in the short term did us no good in the long term. They are less inclined to be agreeable to compromise and are put in a position where even if we wanted to we could not afford to just "let them go" .
The US did far more than "allow" Israel to obtain the bomb — the enriched uranium came from the US through clandestine means.
Pistachio nuts as sanctions busters? Are you even half a nut's worth serious?
Yes, I'm very serious. What the Rich-nuts case proves is the core problem of sanctions (elaborated upon by Naylor)and a quite logical extension of the doctrine of "Uzi Diplomacy".
ʺUzi diplomacyʺ—selling military goods to virtually any customer despite embargos, was described by Shimon Peres in 1958: ʺBy not selling an Uzi to a certain country,we are not implementing an embargo against that country, but against ourselves. It is absolute nonsense to embargo ourselves on an item that can be acquired elsewhere.ʺ
By not breaking US sanctions, Israel (and supporters like Rich not to mention food traders) would be leaving margins on the table for others. Those who agree with the cold logic of Uzi diplomacy feel compelled to break sanctions, and patriotic while doing so.