Déjà Vu all over again...
Radio Netherlands has an interesting interview with Dave Andrews of the British American Security Information Council on the subject of Iranian nuclear weapons: Has Iran told all?
"The United States is pushing for a tough resolution at the International Atomic Energy Agency, condemning Iran for violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. While Washington wants to keep up the pressure on Tehran, other members of the IAEA are more inclined to stick with the policy of "constructive engagement" to encourage Iran's cooperation."
Could the latter work? I guess that depends... as the contemporary saying goes... on what your definition of "constructive engagement" is. Recent events would lead us to believe the most recent (post-modern?) definition of "C E" is "Don't touch our money!"
I interrupt this post for a prediction... When the Iranian mullahcracy is finally brought down (let's hope soon), its monetary relations will be revealed to be at least as corrupt as the Iraqi/Un Oil-For-Food Program. (Okay, I know, it's a no-brainer!)
Meawhile, Italian political scientist Elio Bonazzi writes today of how he believes constructive engagement is the exact opposite of how we should deal with the mullahs. Complete isolation is his prescription:
"Simply declaring that the only U.S. policy towards Iran is regime change, and enforcing it at every level in the administration, would provoke shock waves in Tehran. A resolute and determined U.S. administration could release part of Iran's frozen assets, seized during the hostage crisis of 1979, and use them to fund the Iranian opposition movement, inside and outside of the country. The Islamic regime has lost popular support, and survives only thanks to a very efficient repressive apparatus, exactly like the Communist regimes in eastern Europe before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Imposing sanctions and isolating the regime would provide the final blow needed to overthrow the mullahs."
Sounds like a good place to start. |
