"Sanctions
will do nothing but bind the Iranian people to a regime they no longer want.
The shackles of this regime have yet to pop open - but are holding on by just a
thread. Sanctions can restore them, whereas the realization of this nuclear
danger may instead make them crack. It's a very risky bet. But have we any
other choice?"
It's unlikely that a
terrorist group will one day develop a nuclear weapon. Even less that they will
seize one from a country possessing them, such as Pakistan. On the other hand, it's
hard to see what might prevent Iran from achieving its nuclear dream.
Confronting these credible
assumptions, there are several options. The first, which is by far the most
comfortable, is to deny the existence of any such risk. A commentary common on
the Internet: "This is just another way to distract us from real
problems." Of course, in the event of a nuclear crisis, those same people
will hasten to write to newspapers complaining about not having been
sufficiently warned.
At the other end of the
spectrum, another extreme enjoys a comfortable logic: the warmongers. Iran is
ruled by a mad mystic who has already spoken of wiping another country off the
map. It is therefore necessary to attack Iran before a nuclear
missile lands on our heads. The proponents of this view are thinking of Munich.
Is that a good reference? We're faced not with a conventional war, but with a
nuclear dilemma. In this case, the reference required is rather that of the Cold
War, and even more so, coolness. Apart from sanctions, which will have a
symbolic effect, there are only two options on the table: nuclear reductions or
widespread nuclear expansion.
Let's dream a little. Imagine
that the first option is possible. All countries renounce nuclear weapons. A
U.N. agency would become sole producer of civilian nuclear power and distribute
it according to the democratic process of each country. Crazier still: Ariel
Sharon would emerge from his coma with a message from the dead: "Israel
agrees to renounce The Bomb if Iran renounces it as well!" The two regimes
would save the world from the abyss. The time for peace would have arrived.
End of dream. Geopolitics has
no imagination. History isn't a Machiavellian plan that a man or country can
thwart, but a logical series of interactions and conflicts of interest. With
the best intent in the world, Barack Obama can only sign non-proliferation
treaties with a few interested partners. He can do nothing to force the others.
Only self-interest will push China to set aside its immense need for Iranian
oil to assume its responsibilities as a rising diplomatic power and join the
concert of nations seeking sanctions. This would be an important symbol. But then
what?
The problem remains
unresolved. Sanctions will do nothing but bind the Iranian people to a regime they
no longer want. Tehran has already found a slogan to depict it as a champion of
nuclear reduction, while continuing to work furiously at escalation:
"Civil nuclear power for everyone, military nuclear power for no
one." The logic is compelling but of course contains a hidden flaw.
Everyone greatly doubts that Barack Obama will press the nuclear button. But no
one can trust Mahmoud Ahmadinejad not to.
This man, who believes he is
God's chosen, has renounced all rationality. From him, one can only hope for the worst. But he's not alone in governing. He's just a pathetic puppet in the
hands of the supreme leader and an assembly of more experienced mullahs who are
above all, divided.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
It isn't a question of trusting
in the "wisdom" of this tyrannical regime, but of betting on its demise.
In an ideal world, the green movement would have brought the regime to an end and
the issue would no longer arise. In the world that is ours, the shackles of
this regime have yet to pop open - but are holding on by just a thread or two.
Sanctions can restore them, whereas the realization of this nuclear danger may
instead make them crack. It's a very risky bet. But have we any other choice
but to dream?
