I'm going to pick on Mitt Romney, but he deserves it for being others' moussed-up, ignorant mouthpiece. "Why is Mitt Romney talking about Iran?" you might ask. He wants to be President, that's why. Come 2011 he needs to show (to his kook GOP base, at least) that he's been thinking about Iran for a long time already. That's why his people wrote this op-ed and put his name on it. But this is semi-excusable because it's so normal. No U.S. politician in his right mind actually spends any time thinking about Iran unless he's forced to. That's what advisers are for.
What's worst of all is that Mitt's advisers are showing zero creativity on the Iran problem. They -- er, he, is adding nothing new. He's merely going on the record to say, "I, Mitt Romney, agree with the hard-line neocon view on Iran."
Now as to what he actually proposes... In the paragraph quoted below Mitt demonstrates the main problem with the hard-liners' position: they want to impose "withering sanctions" on Iran as a prelude to war; and at the same time support all these alleged liberal revolutionaries-in-waiting. How much are these revolutionaries going to love the USA when they can't eat?* Sanctions never hurt regimes, only the people whom those regimes oppress. Sanctions are a double-whammy on the oppressed. And they provide convenient cover to oppressive regimes for the country's economic failures.
(*I would love to see some serious intelligence analysis on how many Iranian dissidents are willing to take up arms to take down the current regime. For them to have a shot in hell, they'd better number in the hundreds of thousands at least, and be concentrated in Tehran. If the alleged Iranian Resistance doesn't meet those criteria, then we're just jerking ourselves around. ... But then, we're pretty good at that, aren't we? I bet somebody on the Right will once again have the gall to predict, "They'll greet us with flowers when we come!")
What are sanctions likely to accomplish? Normal Iranians will suffer and eventually blame America, the agent of their suffering. (Romney argues hopefully that most Iranians want more engagement with the West... so Romney urges cutting off their trade and diplomatic ties with the West. Huh?!) Iran's people will rally to support the defiant hard-liners and ayatollahs. And Iran's nuclear program will continue. I mean, look at North Korea, the most sanctioned country on earth: they still have their nuclear program and still find the resources to launch a missile or two every year towards Alaska.
And so, when sanctions fail, as they inevitably will, and the U.S. decides, with the heavy sigh of the world's policeman, that attacking Iran is the only option, America will find itself with few allies inside Iran. If the U.S. has to put boots on Iranian soil -- which it probably would have to do -- it will find itself surrounded by hostile Iranians. We already know how that story goes, folks. (Afghanistan and Iraq). Unfortunately, nobody seems to know how it ends. Not even Mitt.
Iran: Biggest Threat Since Soviets
By Mitt Romney
October 22, 2009 Human Events
[...]
The President of the United States can employ his admiration and good will to actually accomplish something meaningful and real in Iran -- comprehensive, withering sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and international support for the forces of freedom within Iran. The people of Iran represent a major source of strength. By and large, they have not been radicalized by their government and clerics; in fact, the regime's effort to crush the uprising against it has only alienated the people of Iran. They fear economic stagnation and they hate political repression. Most are not seeking a military confrontation with the West. Indeed, most want greater engagement with the West.
No comments:
Post a Comment