More on the Uranium Mullahs
What to do about the Tehran hub of the axis of evil?
For background, check out these two prior posts (a recent one here), including my column advocating “internal regime change” (from two weeks ago).
In today’s Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore divines an apocalyptic connection. “Breaking the seals” has a revelatory ring:
In the Book of Revelation, the Lamb breaks the seven seals and earth-shattering violence ensues: “…the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together… And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men… hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains”.
Our own not-quite-chief captain, Jack Straw, took refuge instead in a BBC studio. It is almost physically impossible to keep one’s attention on the Foreign Secretary as he smothers meaning in his blanket of official phrases about IAEA governing bodies and Chapter Seven UN Resolutions and “prior stages” before anything like sanctions actually happens, but I did hear him yesterday venture the opinion that “in Iran things are difficult”. You’ve got to give it to the man: he’s right.
It is just a pity that Mr Straw recognises it only now…
But what do we do?
Moore:
What can we do? There may be sanctions and other forms of isolation that would work. For instance, although full of crude oil, Iran is short of petrol and has to import a great deal from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Without that, it would be in trouble.
But the bigger question concerns the West’s extraordinary indulgence (Mr Straw calls it “patience”) towards the regime. Why don’t we distinguish government from people and reach out to the latter? In the contest of the West with revolutionaries, we win in the end when we help their victims rise up against them, when the people themselves, not our tanks, take down the Berlin Wall.
Yes. That’s internal regime change, fostered by overt and covert political and economic support. The mullahs fear their own people.
UPDATE: Read this piece by Victor Davis Hanson.
Why not a naval quarintine? Air strikes, though often militarily effective can also be politically sensitive. Mistakes, called friendly fire is common, as happened to the Chinese embassy during the Kosovo War and the bombing of Canadian troops by US F-16s in Afghanistan. There’s also the worldwide liberal press to consider, which eagerly seizes on any claim of civilians deaths from bombing, whether real or not to discredit America. A naval quarantine would be more desirable, in that military force would be utilized without necessarily any attacks. Though the Iranian ayatollahs could care less of any economic effect upon their own people, cutting off the oil flow would influence those who depend on the Iranians, namely Russia, China, and Europe. It would further prove to these nations who are straddling the fence on imposing economic sanctions that America is serious about denying nuclear weapons to terrorists and their supporters.
Comment by Mike Burleson — 1/14/2006 @ 1:56 pm
Iran Nuclear Watch: United Nations Security Council Referral Will NOT End Nuclear Development Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks at a news conference in Tehran January 14, 2006. Iran will not be deflected from its drive to develop nuclear technology if it is referred to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions, Ahmadinejad sa…
Trackback by FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog — 1/14/2006 @ 3:26 pm
Austin Bay - More on the Uranium Mullahs In that case, “. . . DAMN THE TORPEDOS - FULL SPEED AHEAD! HT. Col Austin Bay The collective brain power of the Blogos is now coming online regarding the dangers the free world is now facing by the cultlik…
Trackback by Rocket's Brain Trust — 1/14/2006 @ 4:06 pm
[…] should do any of them, and not one of them is particularly palatable. Austin Bay Blog: More on the Uranium Mullahs Jewish World Review: I […]
Pingback by FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Iran Nuclear Watch: Winds of War - Talk of Military Action — 1/21/2006 @ 8:45 pm