Pacifists are enticing the mullahs to get nukes as quickly as possible.
By Mario Loyola
Last Sunday, to the fanfare of national celebrations, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad again rejected any suspension in uranium enrichment, in open defiance of a U.N. Security Council commandment that Iran is treaty-bound to obey. Meanwhile, in Great Britain, a coalition of humanitarian organizations, think tanks, and peace groups are the latest to warn of the disastrous consequences of a military confrontation with Iran.
This steady “pacifist” drumbeat is meant to keep U.S. policy peaceful. But its chief effect is to make Iran increasingly belligerent. By behaving as if we are the only ones with a risk calculation to make, we are unwittingly shaping Iran’s risk calculation in the worst possible way — by making it risk-free. The result is predictably perverse—in the name of dialogue, pacifism, and international law, we are ruining the prospects for all three.
6 comments:
From the article:
From now on, every step forward in Iran’s nuclear program must be met with a reaction calculated to be opposite and at least equal to the increase in strategic threat occasioned by the Iranian move.
The strategy of incrementalism will only allow Iran to continue this impasse as it has the time to respond to such counter-moves - the drawn-out confrontation will only be made more bearable to Iran. What is needed is a display of potential force to inflict unacceptable damage on their oil and gas infrastructures.
To Iran: you do not have the sovereign right to exercise foreign policy that infringes on other sovereignties. I propose that either we recognise these regimes as Nation States, or not at all. No point in allowing them to stay within the revolving door.
How is it they vociferously uphold the concept of the Nation State as inviolable, and thus their right to pursue nuclear energy by extension, yet be able to get away with ignoring the UN?
Any means to an End, I would say; the classic Marxist dogma.
Iran will act in any neccessary way to bring their goal to fruition.
I'm not convinced, Harrison, that Pres. Bush understands all this. I am convinced that most in Congress don't have a clue concerning this.
We're being told that Iran is turning away from Ahmadinejad. "It would be counterproductive to attack Iran." That is probably true as far as conventional warfare such as tanks and bombs. I don't think it is true concerning unconventional, asymmetric tactics.
Whit, I think Ahmadinejad isn't even part of the equation. If he is, he's just a red herring.
Even if the "grinning little tyrant" goes away the threat is still there!
... it's all a ruse.
I understand the theory that most of the Iranian (Persian) people like us and I can see the "counter-production" from that direction. However, are we really trying hard to overthrow the regime from within? The answer is clearly NO! An Iranian expert on Becks show last night said as much.
Sorry, don't remember his name.
President Ahmadinejad's views are summarized on this website: ahmadinejadquotes.blogspot.com
As far as Ahmadinejad goes; how can you believe what he says? He's been taught since birth to lie to infidels like me, right, Al S.E.?
... like you, maybe?
Post a Comment