The New Politics of Iran

[Pangloss]

Good background on the developments regarding this week's revelation of Iran's second nuclear processing plant may be found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/26/AR2009092602022.html?hpid=moreheadlines

 

One of the more interesting things I heard this week was some insight from ABC's Jake Tapper, who reported that there seems to be a developing consensus regarding the handling of Iran, at least with regard to nuclear weapons. The general idea seems to be that pursuing and pressuring seems to be paying off. In short, when Iran cheats, it gets caught. And more importantly, when it gets caught it weakens their diplomatic support from China and Russia, threatens their oil revenue, and, internally, weakens their elected leaders and riles up the unemployed masses.

 

I was unable to find a link for that video report, but I thought it interesting enough to pass along. I think it makes a lot of sense, and given the abject failure of threats of physical attacks (and actual physical attacks), this would seem to be a wise course for the international community to continue to pursue.

 

What do you all think?

[Severian]

I think it is fairly obvious that this would work better than threats of physical attack. I don't think countries are that different from people. If you try to get someone to behave by threatening them with violence, you are just going to incite them to more violence. You need to include them, make them realise that you care, but also make them understand why you find certain behaviours unacceptable and that these actions will have consequences.

[john5746]

I like this from Obama's speech in Berlin:

 

As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.

 

Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all.

 

In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we're honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny.

 

In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth - that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe.

 

Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more - not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.

 

That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.