As for the question of what we can do now that they all disagree with our having the fuel cycle, I submit to you that we require an opportunity, time to be able to act on our capability in this area. That is, if one day we are able to complete the fuel cycle and the world sees that it has no choice, that we do possess the technology, then the situation will be different. The world did not want Pakistan to have an atomic bomb or Brazil to have the fuel cycle, but Pakistan built its bomb and Brazil has its fuel cycle, and the world started to work with them. Our problem is that we have not achieved either one, but we are standing at the threshold.

Our recent deal with India only cemented the above in the minds of the Iranian leadership. They believe that once they’ve achieved their goal, the world will have to deal with them and sanctions will go away. So expect the Iranians to stall and drag things out while they steadily progress.

It might just do the trick. If not – one should be willing to use military force if is truly necessary.

In response to what and when?

Sure, they ‘could’ work, but shouldn’t the standard be whether we think there’s a reasonable likelihood that they ‘will’ work?

And I presume that to the extent you say they’re ‘working’, you mean that sanctions are causing some degree of discomfort… but shouldn’t the test be whether they’ll cause enough pain… and before Iran has and uses their nukes?

If I may, let me put you on the spot: do you believe the sanctions now in place will cause Iran to back down? If so, how long will it take? If not, do you believe there is a yet-to-be-but-can-and-will-be-imposed set of sanctions that will lead Iran to back down? And if so, what are those sanctions and how long will that process take? And if not, then what do you believe we’re gaining by going through this whole talking and sanctions dance?

And I’ll extend the invitation to your contributors (Shaun?) and readers as well.

Also note, Entropy, that I did not write “they’ve worked”. I wrote “they’re working”. The former implies that all is dealt with, the latter doesn’t.

And while North Korea may have been hurt by these sanctions, that doesn’t prove that these sanctions (or any of the others that have been imposed on North Korea) are responsible for North Korea’s supposed willingness to start behaving… and even if it did, there’s no guarantee that imposing such sanctions on Iran will have the same result. North Korea doesn’t have the power or the friends that Iran does by virture of Iran’s exporting a couple of million (right qty?) barrels a day. Furthermore, North Korea and Iran have different reasons for doing what they’ve been doing and, as such, Iran may be willing to tolerate a whole lot more (or less) pain than North Korea was wlling to tolerate.

It’s fine to try non-military means of safeguarding one’s safety (see Shaun, it’s not always bombs away). But why try them unless you have a real good reason to believe that such things will work or that you have enough time to come up with something else when plan A is proven ineffective?

In the case of Iran, I don’t believe any sanctions will work: partly because our supposed allies will never agree to anything serious and partly because Iran is very committed to getting themselves a bomb and thus willing to tolerate a whole bunch of hurt. And I don’t think we have a lot of time to spend trying all the things that will make Shaun happy.

Iran is as defiant as ever, so how exactly have sanctions “worked?”