SANCTIONS
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
When All You Have is a Hammer...
09-Aug-2009
For most of the month of August, U.S. Congress will be on recess. Consider this the calm before the storm.
Most in Washington are aware that September will bring with it the biggest push for Iran sanctions in years. AIPAC has been lobbying for months on the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA), and on September 10 the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations will kick off a massive nationwide lobbying effort, which they compare to the "Save Darfur" movement. All of this will culminate at the end of the month when, conveniently enough, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrives in New York for the UN General Assembly.
Yes, right around the time Ahmadinejad is at the podium in the UN, Congress is expected to impose what it calls "crippling sanctions" on Iran's economy. The plan is to blockade Iran's foreign supplies of gasoline, hoping that an increase in the price per gallon at the pump will cause the Iranian people to rise up and demand a halt to Iran's nuclear program.
But this plan has number of obvious flaws.
First, the Iranian people have already risen up against the government's hardline leadership. What we have witnessed in Iran for the last two months is unprecedented. To think that marginally higher gas prices will mean anything to a population willing to risk their lives for freedom and democracy is at once naïve and hubristic. According to Juan Cole, imposing broad sanctions on Iran will likely only destroy Iranian civil society and bolster the state's repressive apparatus--as it did in Iraq.
What's more, even if the Iranian people were to demand that the government halt its enrichment program--which they wouldn't, since the vast majority of Iranians support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology--does anyone think that the government will actually go along with it? Has Tehran been particularly responsive to the wishes of its citizens lately? No, in fact, that is what these people are fighting for each and every day: to have their voices heard.
Next, even if the sanctions were effective in harming the Iranian economy, there isn't a single historical example of economic sanctions translating into a desirable change in the Iranian government's behavior. Just as the hardliners are resisting their people's calls for change, so too will they refuse to be seen as capitulating to the demands of the West.
So why is Congress fixated on this idea if it doesn't stand a chance of stopping the nuclear program? Some would say that the government has to be punished for the brutality with which it has treated its people. Politicians in Washington were universally outraged by the violence against the Iranian people. And for many lawmakers, this was a time to stand up in support of these brave Iranians.
Senator John McCain spoke passionately from the floor of the US Senate, saying: "The United States of America must, and this body must, affirm our support for fundamental human rights of the Iranian people who are being beaten and killed in the streets of Tehran and other cities around Iran. We are with them."
Republican Mike Pence of Indiana said: "We are bound to support the courageous and decent people in Iran who are struggling for their rights and their freedom."
And even Minority Whip Eric Cantor spoke up, saying: "We must rally the world around the cause of the Iranian people."
But now, almost in the same breath, those same lawmakers are calling for "crippling sanctions" on the Iranian economy. They are quick to mention that Iran imports 40% of its refined petroleum, making that industry Iran's "Achilles heel" so these sanctions will be able to "bring the economy to its knees."
So much for standing with the Iranian people.
What better way to show our support than by casting the common man into financial ruin? Think about who suffers the most in the US when gas prices rise due to shocks--it's the poor. Why would it be any different in Iran? Certainly the elite won't suffer the brunt of these sanctions--the Revolutionary Guards have been getting rich off smuggling sanctioned goods into the country for years. And with Russia and China ready to provide anything the US won't sell to Iran, the mullahs will surely find a way to fill their gas tanks. So that will just leave the poor and middle class to suffer.
Even neoconservative scholar Fred Kagan has acknowledged the real effect of these petroleum sanctions, saying "Look we need to be honest about this: Iranians are going to die if we impose additional sanctions." So despite all their lip-service, it seems that Congress' priorities haven't changed. They are planning to continue the same failed approach to Iran of the last three decades. To them, these petroleum sanctions made sense before Iran's election, and miraculously, they are still our best option after the election.
Iran changed forever on June 12. We are now dealing with a completely altered country, and we would be wise to tailor our policies to reflect that reality. Congress should brainstorm some new ideas for how to support the Iranian people and still protect our security and nonproliferation objectives.
To start, they should throw out these sanctions.
| Recently by NIAC | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Unblock Relief for Earthquake Victims | 50 | Aug 12, 2012 |
| Oil, sanctions, and prospects for future | 3 | Jul 02, 2012 |
| Upcoming Netanyahu, Obama Meeting | 6 | Mar 04, 2012 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
capt_ayhab
by ex programmer craig on Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:22 PM PDTUS grievances against the Islamic Republic are much older than the war on terror. You aren't very convincing when you try to cast the Islamic Republic as an innocent victim that never did anyone any harm.
Ostaad
by ex programmer craig on Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:17 PM PDTNO WAR. NO SANCTIONS. ONLY NEGOTIATIONS!
That's Islamic Republic English. I translated it into real English.
capt_ayhab
by ex programmer craig on Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:19 PM PDTI clearly see extend of your love for Iranians, thanks for clarifying.
I absolutely HATE the Islamic Republic. I have felt that way about the IRI since I was a teenager, which happened to be when the US news channels were talking about the American hostages from the US embassy in Tehran every day, for a year and a half. Also, I hold the Islamic Republic directly responsible for the deaths of friends of mine in Lebanon.If I could wave a magic wand and kill every senior member of the Islamic Republic and the IRGC, I would.
However, I try not to carry that animosity over to ordinary Iranians. Especially Iranian-Americans, since I have come to believe that most of them are also victims of the Islamic Republic. I make exceptions when I see regular Iranian justifying the appalling behavior of the IRI. That would be people like Jaleho.
[I wholeheartedly support unilateral US sanctions on Iran.]
Yes? So? Isn't it a logical response to the seizure of our embassy and the holding of our diplomats hostage for over a year? What kind of punishment do you think would be more appropriate? If the Islamic Republic wanst to send us the perpetrators to put on trial for their crimes against the US, I could see lifting sanctions. But that hasn't happened, and it is unikely to ever happen. So what do you think the US should do about it? Smile and take it?
[I have no moral objections to military attacks (by the US) on the Islamic Republic. Unlike Iraq]
Yes? So? You do have moral objections to the US defending itself from acts of war committed by the IRI against the US? On what basis? Self-defense is the most moral of alljustifications for war.
One more question: US attacked Iraq based on FABRICATED lies, How is
Iran different?
Because the aggression of the Islamic Republic against the US is not a lie. Do you disagree? Are you claiming the Islamic Republic is not responsible for the embassy seizure and the holding of American diplomats hostage, for instance? Because, that's an eggregious treaty violation right there, and is absolutely cause for war.
After all Iraq was attacked solely for Israel, no other reason.
Did you not see the part where I said "unlike Iraq"? Why are you asking me about Iraq? I did not support the US invasion of Iraq.
Besides attacking other countries does not require any morality
anyways, so lets not even bring in ridicules concept as MORALITY!! What
dose moral have to do with bombing children ha?
Why do you bring children into the discussion? Are Iranian children more valuable than American or Israeli children, in your opinion?
P/S Just FYI, sanctions in connection with hostage's have been in
place for quite sometime now, just in case you did not notice !
Yes, for 30 years. And they should remain in place until hell frezzes over or the Islamic Republic is gone. You've been talking a lot about Revenge lately. Don't you believe that Americans are entitled to revenge too? Or is that something just for you?
war on terror !
by capt_ayhab on Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:14 PM PDT-YT
ex programmer craig, I'm not sure about your English...
by Ostaad on Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:18 PM PDTbut in my English, my message comes across laud and clear. NO WAR. NO SANCTIONS. ONLY NEGOTIATIONS! You should not have dropped out of primary school and stuck around to learn better English, homie.
What is wrong with the "status quo"?!!! No Iranians nor Americans are being killed, I know that bothers you a lot, and both Iran and the US are inching toward some workable arrangement as far as Iran's legal and open nuclear program is concerned.
I assure you people far smarter and knowledgeable than you in DC are working exactly on the negotiated solution that a lot of Iran-lovers and I are talking about as we post, apparently that irritates the hell of you too.
Sorry to disappoint you, but latching on the regime's mistakes 30 years ago will not help you mental condition, only worsens it. Still haven't found a VA with a suitable psychiatric ward to take you in? Sorry to hear that.
"I am Chritian I am white I must be right!"
by Mola Nasredeen on Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:12 PM PDTSaid shotor.
"But you are not any of the above?" I responded.
"I meant this unemployed programmer says it always" Said Hajagha.
"Why is he snooping around?" Asked I.
"He misses Zion the Efriteh, he's looking for her" said he.
"What happened to her Hajagha?" I asked.
"She gave up selling the idea of bombing Iran to Iranians" Shotor farmood.
"Ahsant, Ahsant Hajagha, He's wasting his time then?" I said.
"I have his prescription, he needs to be locked in the same room with the fat prophet." said he.
"you mean Buddah hajagha?" I asked.
"no, Buddah wasn't fat, I meant Rush Limaugh the prophet of hate, ignorance and war" He said.
I said: "Amen! they make a nice couple"
Craig
by capt_ayhab on Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:18 AM PDTI clearly see extend of your love for Iranians, thanks for clarifying.
[I wholeheartedly support unilateral US sanctions on Iran.]
[I have no moral objections to military attacks (by the US) on the Islamic Republic. Unlike Iraq]
One more question: US attacked Iraq based on FABRICATED lies, How is Iran different? why should they even have a non-existing reason?
After all Iraq was attacked solely for Israel, no other reason. Besides attacking other countries does not require any morality anyways, so lets not even bring in ridicules concept as MORALITY!! What dose moral have to do with bombing children ha?
-YT
P/S Just FYI, sanctions in connection with hostage's have been in place for quite sometime now, just in case you did not notice !
Ostaad
by ex programmer craig on Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:56 AM PDTNO WAR, NO SANCTIONS, ONLY NEGOTIATIONS.
In English, that translates as "NO WAR, NO SANCTIONS< NO NEGOTIATIONS".
Because, as I'm sure you know, the ISlamic Republic only demands concessions from others, and never makes any concessions.
So your recipe for success is the status quo. What a shocker!
Well, have fun selling that in DC.
capt_ayhab
by ex programmer craig on Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:53 AM PDTDoes this mean that you support sanctions against Iran?
I know that I have stated my opinions about sanctions in threads you were active on before. You never noticed?
OK, one more time: I wholeheartedly support unilateral US sanctions on Iran. To NOT sanction a government after doing what the IRI did in 1979 (where the Vienna Conventions were violated in every detail, and which remains unresolved to this day) would seem absurd to me. I don't want my govvernment to be absurd.
I have mixed feelings about international sanctions, for two reasons. The first is that without Russia and China onboard at all, and with other countries such as France which have a long history of bypassing their own sanctions for profit, I don't see how sanctions can be effective. The second is that sanctions fail to achieve the desired outcome more often than not, and instead just cause unnecessary suffering.
And how do you
feel about military attack against Iran if sanctions did not work,
which they won't?
I have no moral objections to military attacks (by the US) on the Islamic Republic. Unlike Iraq, there has been more than enough than enough provocation to justify it in my opinion. If the US could guarantee that military action against Iran by the US would result in regime change, I would support it. I won't support anything less than that, and since that (lesser measures) is all that the US Government isputting on the table, I don't support it. That could easily change, though. One more major provocation, and I think the IRI should lose its Navy, for instance.
Sanction-be-sanction...
by Ostaad on Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:48 AM PDTEven the "architect" of the policy of containing Iran through sanctions initiated by the Clinton adminstration, Martin Indyk, has confessed the sanctions that he and other right wing Jewish lobbist with the help of American neo-con(artists) pushed the congress to impose on Iran, have failed miserably to deliver the "desired" results. The result was to force the Iranian people to turn against IRI regime as the result of pain and suffering inflicted on their lives by the imposition of the sanctions.
Economic sanction of any kind, will only aggravate the economic welfare of the Iranian people by pushing them further into poverty. A certain consequence of these sanctions will be increasing Iranians' dependence on the regime to keep their jobs and maintaining their standard of living. The sanctions function as enablers for the regime rather than precipitating its demise.
The regime will use the sanctions, as it has ever since their imposition on the Iranian people, to remind the Iranians who is causing their economic problems, thus divert attention from its own shortcomings and incompetence.
Obama administration should explicitly include immediate and complete lifting of the imposed sanctions in the "negotiations" proposal to the Iran. These unproductive will hurt the Iranian middle/working class by depriving them from developing a non-regime dependent economy. Absent such an economy the middle class in Iran will only have the government to look to for their livelihoods.
Sanction hurt and impoverish the VERY people who are standing up to the regime demanding restoration of their stolen human/civil rights. The hollowness of the pro-sanctions advocates becomes more apparent by the fact that the proposed sanctions only target "imported" gasoline not exporting crude oil and gas, which are the main sources of regime's income! It should be obvious to all observers that the main target of such sanctions are the Iranian working people, not the regime. I guarantee you the regime will never have any trouble finding "benzin" for their bullet proof Mercedes Benz limos! These sanctions are designed to PUNISH THE IRANIANS, not the regime.
Sanctions serve neither the interests of the American nor the Iranian people. The only beneficiaries will be the right wing Iran-haters and the good-old-oil club middle men and women with full backing from AIPAC and other right wing Jewish groups who need money to contribute to their agents in the US congress (the other occupied territories).
NO WAR, NO SANCTIONS, ONLY NEGOTIATIONS.
Doroud bar Iran, doroud bar US, down with Zionism.
Craig: Iranians also hate
by vildemose on Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:42 AM PDTCraig: Iranians also hate Jaleho...lol
Jaleho
by ex programmer craig on Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:35 AM PDTI was obviously talking about non-Iranian Americans. And non-Iranian Americans hate you and Mola even more than they hate Q. At least he goes through the bother to pretend he's on the right side, which shows a certain degree of respect.
Craig
by capt_ayhab on Mon Aug 10, 2009 09:25 AM PDTYou stated[ I use you and Q and the other usual suspects as a kind of weather-gauge to determine if US policy is on the right track. Anything that has you pulling your hair out in frustration is something I can get behind.]
Does this mean that you support sanctions against Iran? And how do you feel about military attack against Iran if sanctions did not work, which they won't?
-YT
“This poster child of ignorance & conman” Said Hazrate shotor
by Mola Nasredeen on Mon Aug 10, 2009 09:46 AM PDT“Who?” I asked
“The opportunist hypocrite & his gang of the clueless admin”
“Who? Khamenehi?” I said gleefully. "No, His opportunistic character and clueless..” Mumbled he. “You mean Rafsanjani” I said with confidence. “No, No, Obama!” Answered shotor, annoyed. "Who says so?" I asked again. “The holder of fire of Aryan race, the keeper of Zarthosht’s fire,The one whose avatar looks like a Mulla in darg, The saver of …” He was still talking when I walked away and said: "Id..t! every village has one"
Sanctions: result of "human rights" groups
by Mehdi on Mon Aug 10, 2009 08:55 AM PDTI have disagreed with these so-called "human rights for Iran" groups, such as SCE, and even to some degree NIAC. These "human rights" activities are very much aligned perfectly with Israel's agenda and strategy - to demonize Iran so that any criminal activity against Iran will seem OK. That is the ONLY reason such "human rights" actvities have been heavily broadcast around the world. All these "human rights for Iran" activities are ONLY helping Israel right wing and neo-con criminals.
PC, you said to Q and IRANDokht
by Jaleho on Mon Aug 10, 2009 07:25 AM PDT" Americans hate you, " and "Do you see any Americans disagreeing with me? " respectively.
Dumb avergae Americans maybe, but good Americans like myself neither hate Q nor agrees with you often :-)
Mehrdad Bavafa, exactly!
by Jaleho on Mon Aug 10, 2009 06:09 AM PDTyou said:" Who knows, maybe this be a catalyst for Iranians to be a bit more innovative and actually try to be more self sufficient "
That is precisely what Iranians have done in the past 30 years of western sanctions. Even Dick Cheney at some point confessed that "we have sanctioned Iran all we could already."
Faced with a gasoline shortage, Iran already advanced quickly to use natural gas in cars. Any sanctions on gasoline imports, will just make Iran rush through generalization of this FANTASTIC idea. For a country like Iran with its massive source of natural gas, the conversion of most cars to natural gas must be made a QUICK priority, and then we will have a much cleaner air as well.
We might be making a great service to America too whereby Boone Pickens in his TV ads can use Iranian technology and its gas run cars MORE as examples of a substitution of dirty and costly gasoline to clean natural gas :-)
Makhmalbaf the DIRT, seems forced to shut up!
by Jaleho on Mon Aug 10, 2009 08:47 AM PDTright after he went to EU parliament and begged the Europeans for more sanctions. Sanctions are so unpopular among majority of Iranians that even in the height of pro-Mousavi sentiments, all of a sudden you saw the official Mousavi representative in the west, Mohsen Makhmalbaf to shut up after he proved that he is such a traitor DIRT with ideological allegiance closer to Israeli neocons than Iranian people. You didn't hear more of his speech trying to betray Iranians.
Any REAL Iranian who pushes for a sanction against Iranian people, or tries to beg the foreigners to curb Iranian aspiration regarding its nuclear advancement, will go down as a traitor and a DIRT, no matter how popular they might have been hitherto. That is going against the wish of 94% of ALL Iranians and would be a political suicide for any personality inside Iran.
PS to the goodbye girl
by ex programmer craig on Mon Aug 10, 2009 01:21 AM PDTYou're displaying total arrogance and making all sorts of accusations here trying to derail the subject at hand.
The subject at hand is US policy towards the Islamic Republic. Did you read the post? So it seems to me that talking about what Americans do or don't support in regards to Iran is entirely relevant. And since you are so vigorously opposed to what Obama and the Democrats in congress are proposing, I've got to question how it is that you think those people who are about to do something that makes you so angry you can barely contain yourself are on your side, and not on mine? It's not really a matter of concern to me though. I use you and Q and the other usual suspects as a kind of weather-gauge to determine if US policy is on the right track. Anything that has you pulling your hair out in frustration is something I can get behind. Discounting all the fake moral outrage you like to exhibit from time to time, of course.
actually
by ex programmer craig on Mon Aug 10, 2009 01:06 AM PDTIt's pretty bizarre for you to be claiming that everyone who voted for Obama supports you, IRANdokht. I don't even know what to say to that, because I'm pretty sure that virtually no American supports the things you have said on this website.
I won't participate in it any longer.
Buh-bye!
actually
by IRANdokht on Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:29 AM PDTI do believe that a larger percentage of Americans voted for the same American presidential candidate that I voted for, not the one you were cheering on...
ain't that right?
I am not sure who are the Americans on this site that I have chased off. You're just making it up as you go, aren't you?
You're displaying total arrogance and making all sorts of accusations here trying to derail the subject at hand. I won't participate in it any longer.
IRANdokht
PPS
by ex programmer craig on Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:17 AM PDTMaybe we should take a poll? We can put together a list of repugnant anti-American positions Q has staked out over the years, and then ask random Americans on the street to give their opinions? We can upload it to youtube and link it here. Should be fun. We wouldn't even need to tell people that the perp is Iranian. I feel confident that the poll results will go my way! After all, Q's buddies won't be there to beat people into answering properly, will they?
And PS
by ex programmer craig on Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:13 AM PDTI speak for a much larger percentage of Americans than you do of Iranians. Don't I?
IRANdokht
by ex programmer craig on Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:11 AM PDTDo you see any Americans disagreeing with me? :p
This is what happens when you chase off all the non-Iranians, IRANdokht.
And by the way, I haven't seen any Americans who have had a pleasant reaction to you, either. Possibly that's why you can't abide the idea of having anyone here who isn't Iranian?
ex PC
by IRANdokht on Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:38 PM PDTDo you speak for all Americans?
IRANdokht
Q
by ex programmer craig on Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:03 PM PDTNobody cares if you are pleasantly surprised. Or even unpleasantly surprised. When people in the US say that are supporting the opposition in Iran, they aren't talking about you. Americans don't support you. Americans hate you. If you had your way, there wouldn't even be any oppoistion in Iran for the US to support. Sorry, buddy. I know how sensitive you are and how important it is for you to feel like you speak for all Iranians, but the US is not on YOUR side. Not in any way, shape or form.
My advice to NIAC
by ex programmer craig on Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:54 PM PDTToo many cliches in this article. If you have so many problems with US policy, come up with an alternative and pitch it. And if you just want to whine, at least come up with something new.
PS-No, doing nothing is not an alternative. Don't even go there.
Dariush, I have been pleasantly surprised
by Q on Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:48 PM PDTon how wide the anti-sanctions concensus runs among Iranians. Read all the articles, we all largely agree: No to Sanctions.
The exceptions, who are now very few misguided individuals who are either willingly or out of hate/ignorance playing footsoldier for all the powerful interests that I mentioned before. But these people are standing out like a sore thumb, especially those who are constantly yelling "airtight sanctions" no matter how many it kills.
Keep up the good work brother.
Israel is against IRI because they don't like competition
by Bavafa on Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:44 PM PDTThey need to be the only fascist/criminal regime so they do what ever they can to take IRI out.
If US went thru with sanction, I sure hope Iran stops selling oil and maybe even prevent any oil shipment to go thru the Hurmoz canal. Lets everybody feel the pain of this non-sense.
Who knows, maybe this be a catalyst for Iranians to be a bit more innovative and actually try to be more self sufficient
Mehrdad
Some speak of Iran and
by Dariush on Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:03 PM PDTSome speak of Iran and nuclear bombs again. Do you all know something that IAEA doesn't after all those investigations? If you do, please inform us. There has been no evidence showing Iran is building nuclear bombs. The only claim they have come up with, is that Iran is thinking about nuclear bombs. Since when, thinking about a crime is committing a crime? Then real criminals are out there, who actually do have and have used such bombs.
The problem they have is not nuclear bombs, it is nuclear energy itself. Once Iran has nuclear energy, she no longer will be dependent on oil and less vulnerable. If Iran has nuclear energy, Iran will not need to sell oil at $50 a barrel, Iran will reduce oil exports and that will keep the prices high for the western country, and yes this will start a nuclear race in middle east and Saudi Arabia and other oil reach countries will follow and that will increase the oil prices even much higher, because just as Iran, they wouldn't have to sell millions of barrel of the oil to survive. That is why western countries claim that nuclear Iran is dangerous and others will follow. Nuclear bomb is just an excuse and a cover.
A gasoline sanction is going to be retaliated by an oil sanction. So get ready for $500 a barrel oil and $10 Dollars a gallon gas in United States and 15 Euro in Europe.
This sanction was being planned for a while. That is why the oil storage facilities and even tankers are being filled, to have enough oil for a few months while this sanction makes it's effects and minimize the effects of a possible oil sanction by Iran. But once the oil sanction by Iran goes beyond three months the western economy will start to collapse. That is when the accusations toward China and Russia will escalate and a regional war if not a world war, will start.
As I said a before, they heard your cry and they are going to help you. First with more sanctions and if this doesn't do the job, they use other means, but they will help you!!!! even if they wipe out half the population and destroy 90% of the country. I wonder, if we are going to see some of these demonstrations then???
What they are hoping for, is more riots and chaos and more killings by both sides specially the government,. The more killings by government, the more the reasons for military actions, OF COURSE, there is no other reason, just to save Iranians, like the Iraqis and others.