Iran out of ideas
Posted by aogWednesday, 28 May 2003 at 21:28 TrackBack Ping URL
Is the next transatlantic rift going to be over Iran? I'm not sure this counts as a new rift since the underlying causes are the same. The US is willing to destabilize oppressive governments to attempt to improve the state of the planet while the EUlite are willing to accomodate any evil as long as it means inertia.

The EU is pursuing a policy of "dialog". What have they to show for it?

EU officials acknowledge they have little progress to show for six months of talks, other than an agreement to admit U.N. human rights monitors and a suspension of the public stoning to death of convicted adulteresses.

"When we raise our concerns about human rights, weapons of mass destruction and support for terrorist groups opposed to the Middle East peace process, they talk softly but they have made few concessions," one EU official said.

The essential problem of the EUlite is that by accepting the tenets of transnational progressivism they have lost the ability (or perhaps even the desire) to prefer Western civilization over others and te capability of acting even if they did have preference. But we see the cynicism even here as even Reuters reports
Unlike over Iraq, Britain and France are on the same side for the moment in backing cautious engagement with Iran. Both also have oil investments in the country of 65 million people. Germany, Tehran's biggest Western trade partner, backs the dialogue policy more enthusiastically, as does Italy.
What was that about money obsessed Americans?
Comments — Formatting by Textile
Prentiss Riddle Friday, 30 May 2003 at 21:20

What I find hard to swallow is the hawks’ apparent conviction that the liberalizing trends already taking place within Iran are going to be fruitless. It looks to me like there’s no surer way to strengthen the hand of the hard right in Iran than for the Great Satan US to be seen trying to undermine them.

Not to mention the humanitarian cost if we do to Iran what we just did in Iraq — although “shock and awe” turned out not to resemble Hiroshima as some of its advance press suggested, we’ve nevertheless killed around 7,000 civilians (and nobody knows how many conscripted troops) and set Iraq’s infrastructure back by years. All of which might be worth it depending on how the reconstruction and “nation-building” turns out, but is certainly not a thing to be replicated in Iran or elsewhere in the Axis of Evil without a damned good reason.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 31 May 2003 at 08:16

Mr. Riddle;

I’m not sure what hawks you have been reading, but I haven’t seen any who advocate an actual invasion of Iran. For instance, Michael Leeden is probably one of the biggest hawks on this issue and he’s more positive about the internal trends in Iran than anyone else I read.

As for strengthening the mullahs (why are the “Right”, in your formulation?) by trying to undermine them, you might ask Vaclav Havel how Reagan’s efforts to undermine the USSR strengthened the Soviet’s hand.

Finally, not even the Ba’ath claim 7,000 civilian casualties. The number is much more likely to be in the low hundreds, which compares favorably with the normal operation of the Ba’ath regime. Very little infrastructure was destroyed during the war. Most of the damage is the result of neglect by the Ba’ath in their pursuit of regional dominance.

End of Discussion