Saturday, April 08, 2006

Iran Going Nuclear: The European Approach

Meanwhile, the Europeans continue their multi-year diplomatic dithering with Iran.

If the Iranians don't promptly sign some diplomatic agreement which they could promptly cheat on, the Europeans threaten to schedule further talks... or worse: pummel Iran with a UN resolution. If that doesn't cause Iran to come to its senses, the Europeans might be forced to resort to the "nuclear option": stiff economic sanctions! I know...I sounds like the apocalyptic ravings of a mad-man, but some Europeans have actually proposed it. On the plus side, economic sanctions would allow politically-connected Europeans to make billions of euros helping Iran evade them, which might give a boost to European economies. Many of these people have been suffering financially since Saddam's oil-for-food bribery scheme was shut down.

In any case, we should listen to the Europeans and do what they say, because they have a really good historical track record of negotiating with dictators to prevent war. (Take a bow, Neville Chamberlain.)

Come to think of it, the last 100 years has only seen a dozen or so dictatorships in Europe, and just two cataclysmic wars. That's a pretty good record by any standard. However you look at it, the Europeans are real "pros" when it comes to successfully managing foreign relations, and preserving peace and liberty. The moral and political principles by which they operate clearly have worked, so we should just keep letting them do what they do.

UPDATE: According to the WSJ, British Foreign Secretary Neville Chamberlain [CORRECTION: British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw] stated the following in a Sunday BBC interview: "I understand people's frustration with the diplomatic process," Mr. Straw said. "It takes a long time and is quite a subtle process." Yes, it takes a long time -- in fact just long enough, for example, for Germany to re-arm; or long enough, perhaps, for Iran to successfully make a nuclear bomb. "Quite a subtle process"? Oh yes, that's diplomatic-speak for: "And during that really, really long time, it shows absolutely no results whatsoever."


Blogger JasonSpalding said...

The fact is that either we choose to allow the Islamic Republic of Iran to develop the nuclear system that would allow for nuclear weapons or we don't. Bring on the apocalyptic rhetoric.

9:28 PM  
Blogger Will A. said...

Before anyone thinks I am an anti-American, defeatist bastard, I'll tell you that I am a capitalist, pro-reason kind-of guy. But heres how it is... there is no better unifying factor for a country than when another invades it. We invade or even just bombard Iran, we will lose, we are already spread thin because of Iraq and partly because of Afghanistan; invading Iran would be suicide. On the other hand, without an invasion, Iran is not unified, the educated youth, a.k.a. the future leaders of Iran see the evils of its present dictatorship and everyone survives. We threw out the dictatorship in Iran years ago, and look where we are now. Lets not do the same thing again. I know I might sound like one of those squeamish spoiled little brats who keep saying 'just listen to them, give them what they want, were the evil ones'. No, were not the evil ones, but lets not make our own situation worse than it already is.

3:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You mean the destruction of a Government, which has brought their people under an absolute despotism, and the death of a tyrant will make the freedom loving Iranian youths hate us? WHAT????

1:41 PM  
Blogger Will A. said...

well, yes, as weird as it may sound, I am saying that. Just look at what happened in the past, it happened before and if we make the same mistakes it'll happen again.

12:17 PM  
Blogger Amit Ghate said...

Hi Will,

I guess we have a very different view of "what happened in the past". If we go in to Iran in the name of our own self-defense and defeat them, including deposing the regime that's currently there and discrediting the ideology which motivates it, then we can effect a very positive change, "winning" as it were. Only if we do a half-assed job, in the name of altruism, including refusing to identify or name the enemy, is the scenario you posit at all likely. I would refer you to a few of John Lewis' writings on this topic, including the one mentioned in my very first post: and as well as to the discussion of Just War Theory in the Objective Standard:

6:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home