As we already know, Halliburton did regular business with Iraq while sanctions were supposedly in place during the 90s.

It's all selective enforcement with the Bush Cabal - they'll make a lot of PR noise about 'punishing' Iran, but you can bet if there's a buck to be made Bush's cronies won't be held to account.

After all, how would we even check if sanctions are being observed? Bush would simply claim 'executive privilege' and we wouldn't even be permitted to ask any more.

Foreign Policy - For centuries, when one country has disapproved of another country’s behavior, political leaders have sought ways to communicate their displeasure short of war. That’s the idea behind economic sanctions. Sanctions allow countries to punish another government without resorting to violence. At least, that was the idea. But a recent study by David Lektzian of Texas Tech University and Christopher Sprecher of Texas A&M University reveals that sanctions actually make it far more likely that two states will meet on the battlefield.

Lektzian and Sprecher examined more than 200 cases of sanctions and found that, when sanctions are added to the mix, military conflict is as much as six times more likely to occur between two countries than if sanctions had not been imposed. Because countries prefer to enact sanctions that aren’t especially costly to themselves, target countries often interpret the action as a lack of resolve. That leads “the country being sanctioned . . . [to] become almost provocative in its actions,” explains Sprecher. “If you try to get away with foreign policy on the cheap, then you’re likely to end up getting into wars that you never really wanted because of miscommunication,” adds Lektzian.

[more available at link for subscribers]

"The spectacle of this great nation which does not know its own mind is as humiliating as it is dangerous." ~ Walter Lippmann

Lektzian, D.J. & Sprecher, C.M. (2007). Sanctions, Signals, and Militarized Conflict, American Journal of Political Science. 51(2):415:431.

Abstract: Economic sanctions are frequently used as a tool of foreign policy, described by some as falling between diplomacy and military force. An important question regarding the use of sanctions is whether they can function as an alternative to military force by demonstrating the sender's resolve and making military force unnecessary, or if their use tends to result in an increased probability that military force will be used. Based on a theory of sanctions as costly signals, the authors develop and test hypotheses regarding the relationship between sanctions and military force. The results show that after a sanction occurs, there is a significantly increased probability of a use of military force. Democracies, because of their propensity to tie their hands with audience costs, while at the same time facing domestic pressure to devise sanctions to be costless to the sender, are highly likely to be involved in a militarized dispute after using sanctions.

link: here.

"The spectacle of this great nation which does not know its own mind is as humiliating as it is dangerous." ~ Walter Lippmann

This is essentially re-arguing that sanctions on Iraq didn't work. They did.

Sanctions are an alternative to war, of course. That they are applied with this singular purpose in mind is highly debatable.

And, since sanctions show an certain amount of antipathy toward another nation, doesn't it make sense that conflict would follow more often than it would in cases where sanctions are not applied?

Admittedly, I am too lazy at the moment to read the thing completely. But on first blush its sounds familiarly like a staked position hunting for corroboration. Consider the source. (my .02 worth)

was a headline on AOL. but there was no resembling article when clicked. trying to find it

Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards said they would not bow to pressure and threatened to "punch" the U.S., in their first response to Washington's plan to list them as a terrorist organization, newspapers reported Saturday.

dk August 19, 2007 - 7:37am

Statements like this would actually be pretty consistent with past Iranian history on the IRGC.

That said, I see potential bias - take a look at Reuters' reporting via IranFocus (which I have a pretty strong feeling contributed to the WaPo piece):

Iran Guards warn U.S. of heavier blows ahead - daily

Tehran

Reuters - The commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted on Saturday as threatening to deal heavier blows in future against the United States after Washington said it may label the force a terrorist group.

The Iranian daily Kayhan said commander-in-chief Yahya Rahim Safavi made clear the Guards would not bow to U.S. pressure and would use all their leverage against the Americans.

Kayhan did not provide direct quotes from the speech in the central city of Isfahan on Thursday.

[emphasis added]

Here's a piece based on an interview done with IRNA in Tehran on the 17th (i.e., broadly contemporary with the Isfhan speech [nice choice of locales, eh? - two fingers up there, for sure]):

Strategy revision was a necessity at IRGC - commander

Tehran | August 17

IRNA - Commander of Islamic Republic Guard Corps (IRGC) considering current structure of the military organ quite different with its initial status, said here Friday revising IRGC's strategy was a necessity.

Brigadier General Yahya Rahim-Safavi added in an interview with IRNA, "Revising this force's strategy, training methods,
organizational flowchart, facilities, management, staff management and control, is a bare necessity today, due to the presence of ultra-regional forces in the region, and the probability of confrontation with them."
He said that the IRGC is taking advantage of five branches toady, it ballistic missiles with over 2,000 kilometer range, and a very strong anti-aircraft defense network, turning it to one of the strongest regional defensive forces, with defensive, security and cultural missions inside Iran.

Expressing hope that the IRGC would remain a competent guardian of the political system of Iran, Rahim-Safavi said, "The IRGC is a fruit of the Islamic Revolution, and capable of effective and brave resistance against any internal, or external aggressive move, relying on scientific methods, and strong belief in God."
He said, "We can side by side with Islamic Republic of Iran's Army, Navy and Air Force, effectively defend the interests and territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian nation, and our national interests.

"The spectacle of this great nation which does not know its own mind is as humiliating as it is dangerous." ~ Walter Lippmann

all the foreign papers are reporting it as fact, yet the American ones are reporting it as "newspapers reported" you can't propagandize in the US, but we can in foreign press. and then it comes back as "newspapers reported". they did this in 2001 & 2002 with Iraq.
find who translated the original Iranian article, and I'll bet you a dozen donuts it's MEMRI or an affiliate. There's gotta be an Iranian we know here who can check the original, eh?

Reuters is far more commonly used outside the United States - and they're the ones that are most skeptical about this. The evidence that you've put forward thus far isn't terribly compelling to me - the Scotsman piece and the AP piece via WaPo are the same piece, the Scotsman has simply used the first three grafs as an unattributed short.

"The spectacle of this great nation which does not know its own mind is as humiliating as it is dangerous." ~ Walter Lippmann

is a far cry from the IRNA quotes, ya think?
and yet that was the AP headline on AOL; that's not bias, that's disinfo by stretched translation or worse.

Read through the English language Iranian news outlets ([partial?] list below). Many of them are carrying wire service stories along this vein - a few containing the exact "punch" quote. There's one hell of a lot of FU language [disamb. - not "Friedman Unit"] coming out of state officials and the IRGC senior leadership.

Bottom line - IMHO the guy very likely said it. The real question is what it means and how it should be interpreted. Further, IMHO the loose throwing around of charges of disinfo is unwise - the bar for disinfo is high and disinfo notably does not mean "stuff that doesn't agree with the reader's preconceptions". Time spent in another "I hate the MSM, reason 246" discourse is far better invested in reading other available sources. All outlets have bias - far better to read a range with the biases in mind.

Iranian English Language Outlets:

http://irannewsdaily.com/

http://www.iranfocus.com/

http://www.tehrantimes.com/

http://www2.irna.com/en/

"The spectacle of this great nation which does not know its own mind is as humiliating as it is dangerous." ~ Walter Lippmann

Press TV is worth bookmarking

IRGC will wreak havoc on US, Israel

Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:03:25

A top military commander says Iran's good leadership and the efforts of the Revolutionary Guards wreak havoc on the US and the Zionist regime.

The Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) Commander Major-General Yahya Rahim-Safavi made the statement in the central city of Isfahan.

"The IRGC shoulders the responsibility to preserve the Islamic Revolution and its achievements, Safavi said.

"It is ready to defend and counter domestic and foreign threats and help further develop the Islamic Revolution based on the guidelines of its leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei," he continued. "The IRGC has both an Islamic and revolutionary nature. It possesses a strong defensive and effective deterrent power in countering threats against the Islamic Revolution."

"The Iranian nation is a model for all freedom-seeking people in the Islamic world," the commander concluded.

SF/AA/RA
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=19951&sectionid=351020101

...I tend to overlook broadcast outlets. This makes me a bad person. :P

Duly bookmarked - thanks again.

"The spectacle of this great nation which does not know its own mind is as humiliating as it is dangerous." ~ Walter Lippmann

broadcasts outlets much either but Press Tv caught my eye. They just started this year.

http://www.mehrnews.com/en/

and Fars News Agency.

http://english.farsnews.com/

Geez, I've forgotten a lot of these...

"The spectacle of this great nation which does not know its own mind is as humiliating as it is dangerous." ~ Walter Lippmann

A misguided proposal

TEHRAN, Aug. 18 (MNA) -- The United States’ proposal to put the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) on its terrorist list is totally irresponsible.

Legally, the IRGC is a military institution and a part of the Islamic Republic’s armed forces which is constitutionally tasked to defend Iran’s borders.

And designating an official military institution of a country a terrorist organization is a violation of international law.

The fact that Washington has proposed taking such illegal action shows that U.S. officials feel they have no proper legal and political tools to use in their confrontation with Iran.

U.S. officials are looking for scapegoats to blame because their Middle East policy has reached an impasse, particularly in Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine, and they have been unable to find a way to resolve the current crisis in the region.

Source

Top general denounces U.S. slander of IRGC

TEHRAN, Aug. 18 (MNA) – The chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces said on Saturday that the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) are defenders of the country and the United States has “no right” to call the protector of Iran’s national interests a terrorist organization.

Source

-----

My sense is that the United States will fail in being able to legally sanction the guards. Have legalities stopped this administration in the past. Unfortunately, no.

...unwise, I think Mr. Hanizadeh shouldn't be quite so sweeping in his characterization of international law. SC1267 designated the entire Taliban movement (including military forces) and put in place a range of sanctions, including freezing Taliban finances. I can see arguments as to why a UN designation of the IRGC wouldn't be acceptable (not least because Iran's a member state - contra the Taliban which was not), but it seems to me that there's nothing particularly sacred about designating the military forces of a state.

"The spectacle of this great nation which does not know its own mind is as humiliating as it is dangerous." ~ Walter Lippmann

but it's a fine line to make when militaries are part of a sovereign state.

But you could be right because the Taliban were the defacto government of Afghanistan who was a member of the UN when they were sanctioned with strong pressure from the United States and Russia.

Doesn't seem to matter if you're an independent state, or a part of it such as a country's military to be sanctioned, especially if pressure is brought to bear by powerful nations.

Revolutionary Guards Commander Threatens U.S. and Israel
The Iranian daily Kayhan reported that Revolutionary Guards Commander Yahya Rahim Safavi declared that "if America and Israel wish to [make] any provocation or [carry out] any stupid act against Iran, [they should know that in response], they will undoubtedly receive a blow a hundred times more powerful... and they will not be able to withstand the raging sea of the people's [wrath], or the power and capabilities of the Islamic [Republic of] Iran..." [5]
[5] Kayhan (Iran), August 9, 2006.

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP124206#_edn5

I'm not saying he didn't give a speech in Isfahan on the 17th, but the language sounds awfully similiar to the speech he gave last year.
He seems to be a one trick pony. Further googling turns up that Kayhan is considerd to be a mouthpiece of the Iranian security unit by dissidents and yet considered mostly intended for a foreign audience by wikipedia. odd. can you explain that one to me? I really wouldn't expect intelligence services to act so blatantly belligerent to a foreign audience so repeatedly. (....then again, ours does)( I guess I just expected statecraft to be conducted a little less like that of the playground. why I would think that, I don't know)

...at least a couple times a year. A keyword search on the MEMRI site is amusing, or at least would be without the sobering realization that that's the only window for many folks.

The thing is, [at least in my opinion] the guy likely does say those things - the relevant question is [again, MO] - what does it mean? Me, personally, I don't think it means a great deal as a threat - this is a really commonly expressed idea and the notion that they'd be really testy about the possibility of being designated, particularly because it can involve specific individuals personally being named, is quotidien.

My understanding is that Kayhan is commonly regarded as an outlet for the Iranian judiciary and intelligence service. The editor is appointed by the Supreme Leader, so there's a pretty tight connection there. I don't know why it is that wikipedia believes it to be primarily for a foreign audience - there's an English edition, but it seems mainly to be running copy from other Iranian services (which sounds a lot like a potential risk management strategy to me). I've seen lots of foreign relations related statements sourced back to them - in conjunction with the connections to the Supreme Leader that may be why they hold that view.

"The spectacle of this great nation which does not know its own mind is as humiliating as it is dangerous." ~ Walter Lippmann

...the broad notions expressed in the Reuters article, given that Fars has picked the piece up and with a re-write apparently rebranded it as their own.

"The spectacle of this great nation which does not know its own mind is as humiliating as it is dangerous." ~ Walter Lippmann