Iran And China Macgyver A Way Around US Sanctions
show comments
  • Cunctator

    “Financial sanctions are an important policy tool, and the case of Iran is grave enough to justify the inevitable costs of using them in this way, but the more we turn to them, the less useful they will ultimately become.”

    This is absolutely true. But it is even more so when the target of sanctions, and other affected countries, recognise that sanctions are often an excuse by the US not to do anything else. If sanctions were but one rung in a ladder of escalation, the incentive to maneuver around them would be diminished.

  • “In the medium to long term, we have to understand that China and Russia (along with a number of other powers) will look for ways to diminish America’s ability to use the global financial system to get its way”

    This merely illustrates the folly of our go-it-alone financial strategy. If the West is serious about guarding its most precious jewel — let us call it the liberal idea — then it will band together (all the industrial democracies, including Japan, South Korea, etc) and leverage its collective industrial and economic as well as financial strength to enforce certain civilized norms. That means tariffs, collective policing of the high seas, as well as access to the international banking system. It’s not too late — we still have the preponderance of power — but it might become too late if we wait much longer.

  • Brett

    Iran is accepting payment for some of its oil in renminbi, but since the renminbi is not freely convertible like the dollar or the euro, a kind of barter system has sprung up that allows Iran to spend the currency on goods and services from Chinese companies.

    It sounds like China came out the better in that particular negotiation. They get oil, and pay for it with what amounts to coupons to buy Chinese goods and services. It’s sort of like how the US will give military “aid” in the form of vouchers to buy US military products (both Egypt and Israel have this type of aid agreement with the US).

  • Mrs. Davis

    Admitting China to the WTO before it became a reasonably liberal polity was an error. Why it was done will be a matter of scholarly debate for a long time. In the long run, or short if possible, we are going to have to decide whether we want murderous, lawless dictatorships to be within our trading sphere. We should not have let Russia in either, after the example of China demonstrated that liberalised trade does not lead to liberalised governance.

  • Some background: How the Chinese Communist Party First Split on Falun Gong

    Why is this important? You figure it out.

  • Kris

    [email protected]: “Why is this important? You figure it out.”

    Because it encourages us to be skeptical of Bloomberg’s anti-sodium initiative? 🙂

  • Corlyss

    Raise your hands, all of you who were surprised by this.

    Sanctions=patty cake

    @Mrs. Davis

    Scholars debate what is obvious to the rest of us. There’s a faction in the US that thinks you give perks to tyrants to encourage good behavior. That faction is called stupid cosmopolitan internationalists who never seem to learn anything whatever from their failures.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.