I am mystified by Arnold’s view that sanctions are bad because they are an “act of war” (so what, if they work – maybe they don’t, but that’s a different question) and that they hurt ordinary Iranians (true, but I’d rather hurt ordinary Iranians than enable their despicable rulers). Also, the sanctions were put on the road to falling apart by the Obama administration’s obvious intent to get rid of them, which has been obvious for some time. It’s quite clear that Obama never wanted any leverage over Iran.

Steve

Realize most of the government spending increases during Bush administration were in military and war spending which did improve our national security. So if libertarians want to lower spending, start with the military and other areas can fall as well.

Let’s say an administration thinks the current Iranian regime is indeed pretty nasty and has to change and become less unfriendly to the U.S. and Israel. Say, at the Jordanian level (which is not exactly a high bar). At the very least, the current regime cannot be allowed to both survive intact with its current outlook and also have an operable, tested nuclear device. But the administration also knows that the sanctions scheme is unstable, and wants to avoid military intervention in all but the most justified circumstances.

So the plan is just the beginning of a ‘by hook or by crook’ process that buys time for three possibilities:

1. Iranian attitudes shift over time and hard-line Islamism – especially in the regime – gives way to a more ‘international mainstream’ outlook. The people of that nation – under our own cultural version of ‘relentless patient assault’ – and their government eventually converge to the progressive norms of other states and Iran stops being a member of the ‘rogues’ gallery’ axis, and presenting these kinds of terrorist / existential threats to its adversaries.

Already, the trends in many of these states are moving in remarkably rapid and progressive direction, it just doesn’t seem that way from a typical Westerner’s perspective and given his typical media diet. Look up the details on the Iranian birth rate, or their female education and abortion programs. And yes, they have oil money, but they also have a massive population, and when you spread the wealth around, it doesn’t amount to much.

A more progressive Iran probably silently slows its covert nuclear program activities to a practically frozen pace.

2. If the regime’s attitudes do not change, but they keep nuclear work to a minimum and despite a lot of bluster and bad behavior otherwise, decide rationally that it is not within their interests to do anything so provocative as test a device, well, that is still a tolerable situation and continuation of the status quo.

3. If however the regime goes full throttle on the bad behavior and does conduct a nuclear test, then the U.S. and Israel (and probably a lot of international partners, and even reluctant sanction-participants) have the justification they need to bring down the hammer. At the very least, an immediate resumption of the strictest sanctions regime possible.

Probably next an ultimatum for CVID (real CVID, this time – which, as it happens, it what the hawks demanded by part of a deal anyway. In this way, it is part of the deal, in a way, as a kind of ‘springing interest’ implied, instead of explicit, conditional contingency.) And if the ultimatum is not agreed to in, say, a week, then John McCain sings the Beach Boys song.

What were the factors and forces that brought the present regime to power and control in Iran?

How has that power and control been consolidated, maintained and extended?

What are the indicated objectives of the exercise of that power and control and the actions for its extensions?

How do we determine those indicated objectives?

Are there any conditions within the composition of that regime and its evolution that offer possibilities to block any of those objectives?

I also don’t think that removing the sanctions is going to give Iran that much of an economic boost. Low oil prices are hurting already, and it remains a pariah nation led by unpredictable religious fanatics (not exactly an inviting place for global capital investments).