Sanctions Will Not Stop a Nuclear Iran...It's Bad Policy

Continuing down a path of poor policy, President Obama has made it clear that he supports tough sanctions on Iran to prevent nuclear arms development. The policy is misguided not because Iran cannot prove to be a threat; it very well could, and its leadership is less than trustworthy--to put it lightly. Rather, sanctions are never good policy!

If the goal of the Obama administration is to defend the United States, then sanctions against Iran will do little to provide for it. Contrarily, Iranian sanctions will merely provide for innocent people suffering and the emboldening of Iran's leadership.

If history has taught us anything about sanctions, it is this: The innocents of a sanctioned country suffer while the corrupt leaders thrive, and the goals of the sanctioning country are never truly met. Likewise, the so-called "targeted sanctions," which have gained popularity in the past few decades, have proven both ineffective in meeting security goals and in shielding the populace from suffering.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul rightly noted on the House floor back in December:

As we have learned with US sanctions on Iraq, and indeed with US sanctions on Cuba and elsewhere, it is citizens rather than governments who suffer most. The purpose of these sanctions is to change the regime in Iran, but past practice has demonstrated time and again that sanctions only strengthen regimes they target and marginalize any opposition. As would be the case were we in the US targeted for regime change by a foreign government, people in Iran will tend to put aside political and other differences to oppose that threatening external force. Thus this legislation will likely serve to strengthen the popularity of the current Iranian government. Any opposition continuing to function in Iran would be seen as operating in concert with the foreign entity seeking to overthrow the regime. 

Dr. Paul could not be anymore right. The harm in sanctions go beyond the pain inflicted upon the populations of targeted nations; our national defense is put in jeopardy as well. 

Osama Bin Laden, himself, noted US sanctions as one of three main reasons for his holy war against the United States. In his evil response, one thing is evident: Nations remember when a hegemonic power causes suffering. Misguided policy will breed ordeals in the future which we will be forced to face, and the scars of the past are hard to overcome. 

It is clear that sanctions do harm. The evidence cannot be hidden, and even the government itself has defied its own policy and confirmed that sanctions don't work.

Jacob Hornberger notes:

Recall the brutal sanctions that the U.S. government enforced against Iraq for more than 10 years. Every year, they were causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children from infectious illnesses, malnutrition, etc. Those deaths didn't cause Saddam Hussein to leave office, which is what the U.S. government wanted. Equally important, U.S. officials were indifferent to the deaths of all those Iraqi children. In fact, the official U.S. position was that those deaths were "worth it," the term used by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright when asked about the deaths by "Sixty Minutes."

 Because we know the track record of sanctions as one of failure and harm to civilian populations, those who value liberty and a strong national defense should be the first to come out against them. No conservative, libertarian, or constitutionalist can consistently support these brutal and ineffective measures.

If Iran poses a true threat, sanctions will only heighten that threat. The Obama Administration would be wise to consider a vastly different policy.

Haitian Relief: Who's Responsibility?

So what do we make of the situation in Haiti from a constitutionalist/libertarian/conservative point-of-view?--a question we must face in light of the suffering caused by the recent earthquake in the region.

The simple answer is this: much should be done, however, not by way of the federal government.

Tragedies like the Haitian earthquake demand a reaction from us all. Hopefully, that reaction is one of concern for our fellow man. But the question arises: Should the response be based on charity or aggression? By this I merely mean: Will true altruism in the form of voluntary giving be the response or will taxes--taken at the barrel of a gun--be forced from some who do not desire to help.

The simple fact is that the Constitution does not allow for foreign aid, even in times of emergency. This does not mean that states under the power of the Tenth Amendment cannot offer foreign aid or that individuals cannot come to side of those suffering. In fact, if you have not already contributed and you are able, I would strongly encourage you to help the Haitian people in any way you can--monetarily or physically.

It is true that foreign aid in itself is flawed and hurts developing nations. But what is to be made of emergency aid?

I contend that allowing the expansion state influence into the affairs of other nations is a potential hazardous concern for ourselves and those we intend to help. Aid should come via a concerned people not an expansive state.

Moreover, even though our military may look good on a humanitarian mission in Haiti, I am not sure that we should support such a measure as it undermines the mission of the military to provide for the common defense of the United States. And I am not the only one who sees it this way. A better image--and one that does not violate our Constitution--is the image of citizens voluntarily coming to the aid of the Haitian people.

Some have said that sure we could help out as a government, even Ron Paul. And while I agree this is not the worst thing that could be done, I believe that it would be far better for the private sector to act alone in the humanitarian efforts. It is quite doable and I am sure that the private sector will be most responsible at the days end. Lastly, I am not even against governmental action--as long as it is not federal in nature.

My point is simply this: no matter what the situation that arises let's not look to the federal government as our savior. Moreover, let us in the private sector step up, be consistent in our views, and provide help if we are able and willing.

My thoughts and prayers truly are with the Haitian people. May Christ be magnified in this tragedy, and may all suffering be alleviated.

PS: I would also recommend you read the following post by the Humble Libertarian on How to Help Haiti for the Long Term. It provides what we can look to long term after we take care of the needs of the moment.