Though I might find this mildly insulting and my first instincts on foreign policy are not (and never will be) wholly libertarian, I'm starting to think the less we react to this, the sillier this looks on the world stage.Ahmedinejad needs a bogeyman to secure his powerbase. We should not give him one. The regime is starting to look like some spoiled toddler screaming for attention, desperate to be validated by a grown up. Every good parent knows to ignore it.
That being said I'm no fan of Obama style appeasement with his faux apology over the Mossdegh affair, which looks about as silly. Nor his astonishing historical ignorance and sanitisation of Islam for that matter. I'm quite sure Middle Eastern realists were wincing as much as I was.
But we have problem. The more desperate this regime becomes the more serious these cries for attention will become. It's a bit of a win-win situation for Ahmedinejad right now. Because of the Wests prior indiscretions we cannot be seen to be meddling. While Iranian media will no doubt be telling Iranians that we are, very few will believe it. However, actual interference would be just enough to strengthen the hand of the regime even if some would welcome it. We do not want this and he knows we do not want this.
So not only can he get away with this he can also ramp up the mischief. He can have his fun as he did with the HMS Cornwall crew in the certain knowledge the West will do absolutely nothing. Iran can also reignite Iraq at any time if it feels threatened enough. So all we can expect is an "escalation of dialogue" and a further flutter of tranzi activity but nothing Ahmedinejad need concern himself with. So in effect the regime can do as it pleases as long as the Iranian people are sufficiently repressed.
This makes it all the more important that Iran does not become a nuclear state. The region and the world (and Iranians) cannot afford it. Iran is looking pretty untouchable politically right now. How will it be when it is a nuclear armed country? A nuclear armed Iran would create a regional hegemon which may ignite a Middle Eastern arms race with dire consequences for energy prices and liberty everywhere.
Much though we may prefer not to strike Iran, if we don't do something now, we may have to later on. Those windmills ain't gonna give us energy Independence any time soon and right now the security of the whole region rests with the largely unarmed Iranian opposition. Is that a gamble we can afford to take? I think not. We have ugly choices with ugly consequences. Inaction is not one of them.
But that is only my opinion. And like assholes... everybody's got one.
RSS Syndication
2 comments:
Though I might find this mildly insulting and my first instincts on foreign policy are not (and never will be) wholly libertarian, I'm starting to think the less we react to this, the sillier this looks on the world stage.
Concerning Iran I think you are wholly within your rights - they have imprisoned our staff and armed forces and have technically declared war on us several times over; we need to draw a line in what we will allow their government to get away with.
We also need to stop perscuting groups such as the PMOI (no matter how deluded their own beliefs are) in the interests of appeasement; enough is enough - letting them imprison their troops or our diplomatic staff in direct violation of international laws on the subject should lead to repercussions or at least promises of repercussions.
As libertarians we should be willing to bring pens to the table, but not fear to keep our swords leaning against the side, in clear site.
On a related note how do people feel about the concept of "proportional response"? To me this sounds like collectivism; equating a finite value to human life for our own citizenry - this seems inherently wrong to me; IMHO a "proportional response" is to remove the ability of the offending party to repeat its action again - this may mean levelling an entire nation or destroying its armed infrastructure but I cannot help but think this sends out a clearer message than "tit-for-tat", i.e. "do not fuck with us".
Obama's naivete on foreign policy is breathtaking. I remember him and John McCain in one of their presidential TV debates, talking about Iran.
Obama was waxing lyrical about hands-across-the-divide bullshit, McCain looks at him in bemusement and says "You can't say that kind of thing out loud"
McCain, an old stager knew exactly what kind of whacked beardocracy Iran really is, Obama needs to learn fast or perhaps the Israelis will remind him with some well-aimed ordnance.
x
Post a Comment