Wise Words on Iran

Talk to Tehran

Fareed Zakaria has some wise reflections on how to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue that goes along the same lines as I have been advocating here.

With the military option de facto a non-option, there has to be an intense efforts to develop the political option. As this is unlikely to lead to a rapid solution of all issues, it’s a question of managing the issue over time in such a way that the incentives for the Iranian leadership to go nuclear are gradually diminishing.

There are examples of this succeeding in other cases in the past, although there are of course also examples of it failing. Both Pakistan and India went nuclear in spite of intense pressures to prevent it.

It’s time for faresighted statesmanship on a very critical issue.

6 Responses to Wise Words on Iran

  1. Sven K skriver:

    Once the mullas get their hands on nuclear weapons, they are eager to use them for Islamic needs. No doubt about that.

    Pakistan differs from Iran, since there is no fundamentalist regim in place, at this moment.

    Islamists could never deal with a nuclear balance situation, since they get mad from time to time.

    That´s the point. Never let them in. That´s certainly the Russian and Chinese viewpoint too.

  2. Per Stromsjo skriver:

    The military option, however undesirable, remains an option.

  3. Blogbluddle skriver:

    The Iranian mullas are pretty safe now, after decades of consolidation, that is hard repression.

    Of course the US should have invaded and punished Iran for its hostage taking, an incredible crime against international law, but it might have been too close to the Vietnam war.

    Instead there were weakness and diplomacy, and here we are. Diplomacy with the Devil wont work.

  4. Björn Hallberg skriver:

    Blogbluddle: Really? So the US should have invaded Iran when the hostage situation arose? How convenient that some people seem strangely unable to recollect past event after the point when they become counterproductive to their own cause …
    Please look up Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh and the coup. Events were set in motion then that led to the revolution of ’79 and the hostage situation. And the US / British influence over the oil industry even 50 years ago. Some things never change and the apologists for big-biz, imperialist oppression seem awfully consistent. As for the hostage situation, and why the US didn’t do more, please refer to the ”October surprise.”

    Military intervention IS a NON-OPTION in the non-bizzaro world.
    Because it is morally wrong, illegal under any sort of international agreement I can foresee and indeed impractical. Just look at the numbers. The Iranian defense figures. And the US being stretched thin over two major conflicts that are both ongoing. I’m sure the US could prevail in the end, but casualties would be in the tens of thousands and really, who would want that?

  5. Per Stromsjo skriver:

    If or when the mullahs go nuclear we might soon find ourselves talking about entirely different casualty figures. That’s why the undesirable option remains an option.

  6. Blogbluddle skriver:

    There will be a lot of debate back and forth on the Iranian issue, but predicting a nuclear Jihad is much easier today.

    The democracy will prevail, but at a higher cost than ever.

    Better dead than in the mullas reign.

%d bloggare gillar detta: