exports, and absolutely all imports it would be much more effective.
You would need military naval and land enforcement, and make it much
more worthwhile for the surrounding countries to comply with the
sanctions than to violate them.
This is what happened with Libya, South Africa and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe,
where the sanctions were quite effective.
larry
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:32:49 -0400, Howie Hamlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree tht force should be the last resort. However, sanctions don't tend to work on regimes like Iran as they didn't work in Cuba, Iraq, etc.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Larry C. Lyons
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 11:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Containing Iran
>
> It depends. I do not trust the present regime to put together a
> coalition in the UN. They've pissed too many people off.
>
> As for aerial asaults, Haretz (spelling) reported that the Israeli
> government just purchased over 500 bunker buster type bombs.
> Interestingly enough the sale does not go through until after the
> November election.
>
> Force should be an absolute last resort. Start with still economic
> sanctions coupled with a naval and land blockade to ensure that
> nothing get through. Couple that with freezing of all assets including
> those in the Swiss or Caymen Island bank accounts that the mullahs
> have been stashing their bribes for years. Nothing goes in and nothing
> goes out. Then let all the Iranian people know in detailed terms how
> the sanctions can be lifted.
>
> larry
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
