One or Two Questions
Hillary Clinton, for public consumption, talked of sanctions on Iran the other day. I've asked this sort of question before; if Iran works through Syrian and British banks, and if that state or those banks are strategically important at the minute, how would sanctions on Iranian trade work?
Secondly, if the sanctions are on western banks and Syria, why wouldn't Iran and North Korea, who tend to operate together, just go for a South American bank or work through China?
Thirdly, at a time when China is using its dollar surplus to buy off central Asian states, lock up commodities, and deepen its relationship with Russia, why are we stoking a possible Persian war? What does Hillary know, or want, that the rest of us do not?
Sanctions have become a Sherman-buffalo way of weakening a state before invasion or subversion in the past few years, and they generally affect ordinary people. I suspect that a good part of the time they strengthen the political support of regimes. There are other ways to undermine leaderships, though unfortunately, they may embarass western intelligence agencies.
How about targeted revelations of any Iranian involvement in Somalia, Lockerbie, or the Danish cartoon crisis? Wouldn't they be a different way of creating the atmosphere Mrs Clinton seeks? Are they on their way?
Hillary Clinton, for public consumption, talked of sanctions on Iran the other day. I've asked this sort of question before; if Iran works through Syrian and British banks, and if that state or those banks are strategically important at the minute, how would sanctions on Iranian trade work?
Secondly, if the sanctions are on western banks and Syria, why wouldn't Iran and North Korea, who tend to operate together, just go for a South American bank or work through China?
Thirdly, at a time when China is using its dollar surplus to buy off central Asian states, lock up commodities, and deepen its relationship with Russia, why are we stoking a possible Persian war? What does Hillary know, or want, that the rest of us do not?
Sanctions have become a Sherman-buffalo way of weakening a state before invasion or subversion in the past few years, and they generally affect ordinary people. I suspect that a good part of the time they strengthen the political support of regimes. There are other ways to undermine leaderships, though unfortunately, they may embarass western intelligence agencies.
How about targeted revelations of any Iranian involvement in Somalia, Lockerbie, or the Danish cartoon crisis? Wouldn't they be a different way of creating the atmosphere Mrs Clinton seeks? Are they on their way?
Comments