As you see, the Chapter VII UN Sanctioning process can be made to work just fine as long as the United States continues drawing its evidence of Iranian misbehavior from credible international sources. That our diplomats have been working diligently to get foreigners to ratchet-up the pressure is all to the good. It's crucial that we not do anything crazy -- bombing, say -- that would puncture this international consensus. And, of course, you've got to be able to take "yes" for an answer if the Iranians decide they'd rather rejoin the world than build a nuclear bomb.
« The Fear | Main | Message Discipline »
Sanctioning Iran
25 Mar 2007 12:36 pm
Comments (6)
Regardless of Mossadegh, the Iranians are responsible for the government they have today. They overthrew the Shah and replaced him with a theocracy; if they don't like it, let them overthrow the theocracy and replace it with something better. If history elsewhere in the region (Pakistan, Iraq, etc.) is any guide, if the U.S. and Britain hadn't overthrown Mossadegh, an Iranian dictator would have done so eventually.
Iran as far as I can see has not invaded a country and dropped cluster bombs on civilians. Too, it's not currently perpetrating a racist, genocidal ethnic cleansing campaign against its neighbors. So, other than Jeff Jacoby & Co. telling us its a good idea- why are there sanctions in place for Iran- and not Apartheid Israel?
UN diplomacy works just fine in applying sanctions, but if history is any guide, sanctions usually don't work in deterring this kind of behavior. If the Bush administration continues its multilateral diplomatic track on Iraq, and Iran continues to develop nukes, then it will be necessary to bomb them.
We didn't realize at the time, but in hindsight, Clinton's 4-day Desert Fox bombing of Iraq virtually destroyed Iraq's widely-dispersed WMD program. There's good reason to think a bombing campaign could have similar results in Iran.
Hopefully, Iranian leaders won't be so confident in the Bush administration being hamstrung that they think he won't bomb them if necessary. If they realize that this is a real possibility, perhaps the threat of it alone will be enough to make them comply.
Ignoring Mossadegh when discussing Iran is like sharing a bedroom with an elephant and complaining about the clutter. Mossadegh is just one glaring example out of many on why US interventionism NEVER works. It RADICALIZES populations, hence Mossadegh's popularism and nationalism are replaced by more militant theocratic nationalism and Ahmedinejadian chauvinism. US interventionism is almost always shortsighted, anti-democratic, and profit-driven. Ahmedinejad was elected, but the Iranian people are much more moderate than their government. Bomb them and radicalize them. You only have to look as far as Iraq for proof of that. Want to create terrorists? Kill innocent civilians.
Gregorio:
"US interventionism NEVER works. It RADICALIZES populations..."
U.S. support for economically rational, right wing dictatorships/oligarchies in places as diverse as Chile, Taiwan and South Korea has led to the growth of stable democracies in those places. I'd venture that the reason why Iranians became radicalized had less to do with the U.S. and more to do with their dominant religion being Islam.
Comments closed April 08, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Can we sanction the US and Britain for the assassination of Mohammed Mossadegh and the subsequent installation of Shah Reza Pahlavi? I know it's a bit after the fact, but we singlehandedly set Iran— and perhaps the entire region— back 50 years for our own shortsighted imperialist designs.
Damn, I wish my grampa had invested in BP stock.
Posted by Gregorio | March 25, 2007 7:26 PM