Ron Paul: Why Can't the US Let Go of Iranian Sanctions?
As the P5+1 talks come up against the deadline for a deal, Ron Paul wonders why the US seems so determined to cling to sanctions on Iran even if they fulfill their obligations under the agreement. He also explains the surprising origins of the US sanctions on Iran.
As the P5+1 talks come up against the deadline for a deal, Ron Paul wonders why the US seems so determined to cling to sanctions on Iran even if they fulfill their obligations under the agreement. He also explains the surprising origins of the US sanctions on Iran.
As the P5+1 talks come up against the deadline for a deal, Ron Paul wonders why the US seems so determined to cling to sanctions on Iran even if they fulfill their obligations under the agreement. He also explains the surprising origins of the US sanctions on Iran.
Sanctions and Their Unintended Consequences00:08:43
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Ron Paul Liberty Report.
Today with me is Daniel McAdams who is a co-host but he's also the executive director of the Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
Daniel, good to have you with us again.
Good to be back in the saddle.
Well good.
One of the big issues going on today that I wanted to discuss a bit and you know a good bit about this and we've discussed it a fair amount when I was still in office and that has to do with the Iranian sanctions and it's been in the news mainly because they ended the discussions.
Oh but we can extend them.
Of course the dead end wasn't a dead end and what says they have to quit talking but at least it didn't reach an agreement.
Why don't you give us a brief update on where we are on these negotiations?
Sure these are the P5 plus 1 talks as they're called you know the Security Council five members and Iran involved in talks and the whole purpose of the talks is for a reduction relief and sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran doing certain things that the international community decides.
You know our old friend Gareth Porter who keeps up with this very closely wrote an article last night where he had a source that explained to him the real sticking point.
They basically agreed on most of the things that Iran has to do.
What they can agree on is on lifting the sanctions.
So this is the whole purpose for Iran to go there really because they're hurting, they've hurt Iran to a degree.
But you know the question is Iran is saying okay we're going to make irreversible steps to comply with this agreement, retool this heavy water plant in Iraq, in Iraq it's called and a few others that are irreversible so we can't undo it but the P5 side is saying well it may take years for us to get rid of these sanctions anyway.
So you know it's it's funny I started thinking you know does anyone really know the origin of these sanctions?
You sound like a one-sided deal.
The solution is one-sided but you know this is something that when this came up I got to thinking wonder exactly when this happened because I do remember we did have a vote in 2006 or so to reinforce these sanctions.
But why do we have sanctions?
I'll bet you since I had to refresh my memory can you I bet there's not many members of Congress who would say why do you think we have sanctions on Iran?
They would say well they're threatening to bomb us with a nuclear weapon or something like that they might get a bomb or something.
But they won't remember.
But you know I understand that the first time we put on sanctions was when the people rose up in Iran and overthrew a dictator.
Of course that was bad because it was our dictator.
It was the Shah and nobody talks about what he was doing to the people.
But it was even though it was religious oriented and there were radicals involved I mean it was all anti-American because we don't like our dictators to be kicked around so we say we'll kick Iran around a bit too so we put on sanctions.
That sounds like blowback doesn't it?
There you go.
And then not too long after that of course we didn't like the Iranians by that time.
Everybody knew we had they're our arch enemy but Iraq Saddam Hussein he's our friend.
This is so disgusting how we just flip-flop and go back and forth and no concise consistency with our foreign policy.
So we go to Saddam Hussein and say hey you don't like you don't like this Ayatollah and look at what they're doing.
So they said yeah we'll help you out.
We'll go to war.
So Iraq invades Iran and so we put more sanctions on Iran at this time where another one of our thugs is invading it.
Of course he eventually didn't end up on our side.
But generally speaking I just don't like sanctions.
People don't realize how serious they are.
And this whole negotiations, I'm not sure too much will come of it.
I favor it, and I think what's happening in the Senate and different places isn't so much that they're arguing the position of a non-interventionist foreign policy hardly, but I think when they start writing letters and obstruction, it isn't because we want to follow the Constitution.
I think they really want to scuttle this.
They don't want to see anything.
And obviously, the deal the Iranians were offered is hardly a very good deal.
Well, at least they're not getting any relief right away, or it doesn't seem like it.
And Congress is trying to put roadblocks in to prevent President Obama from lifting the sanctions.
But you know, I think the real issue is there's a danger for the neocons, at least, of Iran being seen as a rational actor, because all along it has to be drummed into people's heads that Iran is run by a bunch of crazy people.
They're not rational.
That's why we can't trust them with any of these things.
They're irrational people.
So if these talks are successful and Iran has sat down to the table with world leaders and made agreements and carries out these agreements, then the real basis of the neocon and even Netanyahu's animosity toward Iran suddenly starts to disappear.
Well, there are times when there's pressure been put on the Iranians to do such and such, but in essence they have been required to prove a negative that it doesn't exist or they won't do it, which is a virtual impossibility.
But they put that pressure on, they didn't prove this.
But they seem to want to avoid some of the factual things about how often were the Iranians found in default of their agreement with the non-proliferation treaty.
You know, there's a couple countries that don't even belong to the non-proliferation treaty.
So I think that sanctions do have the blowback and they have the unintended consequences because Iran is not a monolith.
Matter of fact, I work with Iranian doctors over my years and there was no ingrained animosity there.
So I think there's a lot of pro-American sentiment with the Iranians.
And there's dissidents or people who would like to get rid of a radical element.
But when you go in with either drone missiles or sanctions and all of these things, I think it unifies a country just like we are unified when somebody is attacking us.
I mean, there was nothing bad about Americans coming together and saying, hey, look, we're in big trouble today.
Somebody attacked us and bombed us, you know.
But it was something that the people, Republican and Democrats, came together because they were under attack.
So I think these sanctions very often do the same thing.
And they also, the other thing they do is they hurt the small businessman.
They hurt the small and medium enterprise.
They hurt trade.
And as you've always said, trade promotes peace.
You know, the real danger, and you made a good point that you're not that crazy about talks like this.
You know, Iran has an incentive to do it because they want to not only to trade, but as the leverets who are on the board of the Institute and their experts on Iran say, Iran also wants to be accepted as a member of the international community.
And so it did not feel like you're a sanctioned black mark country.
So it's about esteem as well.
You know, I wouldn't want to be cavalier about this, but sometimes I think about it that good conservatives have a good position on the right of individuals to own a gun.
And they argue the case that guns just don't pop up and kill people.
Guns don't kill.
People kill.
And very often this is true around the world.
You know, just the fact that people have a gun doesn't mean that we should feel threatened.
Think of how many nuclear weapons are around there.
And if you ever saw that map of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran, it seems like it would be more normal or natural for self-defense that they would think about it.
But I honestly believe that they have come to the understanding that it's not in their interest to push for a bomb at this particular time.
And I think the more we get along with people, the less likely this is going to happen.
I mean, it isn't exactly like the Pakistani government are made up of a lot of saints.
And of course, we've aggravated that situation with drone missiles and whatever.
But, I mean, we treat them differently.
Consistent Inconsistencies00:02:03
And I think it's unfortunately back to our original thing, you know, don't mess with our dictators.
And if you do, we're going to be harsh with you.
And I think that's one of the tragedies of our foreign policy.
Well, you're going back to the sanctions.
Another funny story we just talked about before we started is the Iran Sanctions Act were originally the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act because back in the early 2000s and before Libya and Gaddafi was a bad guy.
But then in 2006, the U.S. decided, well, Gaddafi's not such a bad guy.
We're going to take Libya off the sanction.
They're the good guys then.
And then five years later, we decided he's a bad guy again.
We went in and killed him.
You know, one thing I think it's safe to say is our foreign policy hasn't been consistent other than consistently wrong, endorsed by both parties.
And I was always fascinated with friendly political opponents on the house floor who come up, Ron.
One thing I want to say is you are consistent.
You are consistent in a complimentary fashion.
I always wondered about this.
What are they thinking about themselves?
If I'm consistent, they're not.
Evidently, it doesn't bother them.
But anyway, I think this, hopefully, something good will come from this and that they can get rid of sanctions.
I think that is so important.
But it remains to be seen.
I know that there are some who are very determined not to have any breakthrough, just as no breakthrough with Cuba.
Today I saw a statistic that's showing the majority of the American people want sanctions removed from Cuba.
So hopefully someday we'll be more open to dealing with the Iranians.
Yeah, well, you're right.
Just one final thing, if you don't mind, is talking about some people are desperate to not have it go through.
I just wrote something yesterday about John McCain went to the floor of the Senate last week and he told Israel, you need to go rogue on Iran.
You need to follow through with your threats to attack Iran.