The Senate just proved Colonel Andrew Bacevich's point — about stupidly conceived American foreign policy

© 2016 Peter Free

 

07 December 2016

 

 

Ninety-nine dopes in the hall

 

The Senate just renewed economic sanctions against Iran (for another 10 years) by a vote of 99-0.

 

This means that:

 

 

In general, unless licensed by OFAC [Office of Foreign Assets Control], goods, technology, or services may not be exported, reexported, sold or supplied, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by a U.S. person, wherever located, to Iran or the Government of Iran.

 

The ban on providing services includes any brokering function from the United States or by U.S. persons, wherever located. For example, a U.S. person, wherever located, or any person acting within the United States, may not broker offshore transactions that benefit Iran or the Government of Iran, including sales of foreign goods or arranging for third-country financing or guarantees.

 

In general, a person may not export from the U.S. any goods, technology or services, if that person knows or has reason to know such items are intended specifically for supply, transshipment or reexportation to Iran.

 

© 2012 U.S. Department of the Treasury – Office of Foreign Assets Control, Iran: What you need to know about U.S. economic sanctions, www.treasury.gov (23 January 2012)

 

 

Considering that economic sanctions arguably have never worked to our strategic advantage . . .

 

. . .  and mostly harm innocent populations, one can be forgiven for wondering whether American leadership is exclusively comprised of the Warmongering Brain Dead.

 

 

Former Army Colonel (now professor) Andrew Bacevich recently said

 

With regard to American interventionism generally:

 

 

US policy is based on articles of faith -- things that members of the foreign policy establishment have come to believe, regardless of whether they are true or not.

 

What's really striking is Washington's refusal or inability to take into account what this penchant for armed interventionism actually produces.

 

No one in a position of authority can muster the gumption to pose these basic questions:

 

Hey, how are we doing?

Are we winning?

Once US forces arrive on the scene, do things get better?

 

The public is responsible in this sense: The people have chosen merely to serve as cheerleaders. They do not seriously attend to the consequences and costs of US interventionism.

 

The unwillingness of Americans to attend seriously to the wars being waged in their names represents a judgment on present-day American democracy. That judgment is a highly negative one.

 

© 2016  C.J. Polychroniou, The Anatomy of US Military Policy: An Interview With Andrew Bacevich, TruthOut (04 December 2016) (interview extracts)

 

 

The moral? — Doing harm, to no workable moral or strategic purpose, is the equivalent of callously engaged evil

 

Injuring ordinary Iranians with broadly construed economic sanctions — Iranians whom we supposedly would like to persuade to become our friends in the pursuit of democracy and freedom — is strategically counterproductive.

 

We can reasonably conclude that encouraging global well-being is not American leadership's actual purpose. Sowing violent discord seems to be.

 

Follow the money.