Iran: Economic Sanctions Success Story?

Economic sanctions don't always get the best rap. Frustrated Middle East watchers and myriad Obama critics point to Iran as proof that sanctions aren't coercive, but the detractors may have spoken too soon.

FP's The Cable blog (which, incidentally, has impressed me with its coverage of the Syrian chemical weapons story) put up a new piece this Friday on the reputation of Hasan Rouhani, Iran's new president, in the US intelligence community. Former IC officials who met Rouhani during the Reagan administration say he struck them as a genuine moderate.

If they're right, his election could be a first step toward real progress on ending Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. But the article also mentions another contributing factor: the UN sanctions regime.

Why the US can't expect the rest of the world to ignore Iran

I was doing my daily scan of foreign policy blogs and I came across an interesting point made by one of the bloggers over at Real Clear World.

Having had an in depth discussion in class last week about the necessity of Turkey's engagement with Iran, I feel that the question presented (what is going to be the reaction to the strengthening of Georgian-Iranian ties?) only proves that the West, and especially the Western media tend to approach Iran very naively.  It is easy for the US to be high and mighty and impose sanctions on Iran who is "not enriching uranium for weapons purposes but is developing missile technology."  When your country is within range of said missiles, one must act a little more carefully.  Clearly Turkey, and now Georgia, understands this.  Each country has a right to act in such a way to protect its own national security, and (naturally) every country will.  What must also be understood is that pursuing a diplomatic relationship with Iran doesn't not automatically undermine any close ties with the West or Washington.  Arguably, if Iran was located where Mexico is, the US would also need to act more carefully.