Friday, January 19, 2007

More on looming Iran conflict

Follow up to yesterday’s post on Iran.  Today’s news says that Iran is boasting that it’s ready for any move the US is going to make, and the US is boosting troop levels, another carrier group and more aggressive moves on Iranian’s abroad in a move to show Iran that it is not more vulnerable after 4 years in Iraq.

      "Today, with the grace of God, we have gone through the arduous passes and we are ready for anything in this path," state-run television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

Whatever that means.  Interestingly, as much as Iranian leaders give lip service to Allah, the motivations behind their foreign policy are less than pure given their ideology.  Check out this picture of Ahmadinejad with Bolivian Marxist Evo Morales cuddling up during the swearing in of the new president of Ecuador.

As far as our response to Iran as of late, I wonder what Bush is planning to do.  One thing I think we can’t do is listen to those who think that appeasement or negotiation is the sole way to engage the Iranians. 

      In Paris, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, said he was concerned the sanctions could escalate Iran's standoff with Western powers.

      "I don't think sanctions will resolve the issue ... sanctions in my view could lead to escalation on both sides," he warned.

      ElBaradei, who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency, suggested that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities ultimately would not thwart its ambitions.

      "What we know is that Iran has the knowledge, but you cannot bomb knowledge," he said.

Once again I don’t think that any of this is going to change things.  And I think that Mr. El Baradei is correct in that sanctions are going to work about as well as they did with Saddam, that is not at all.  In fact it’s just going to be hard on the people of Iran.

A reader from yesterday responds, making the argument that our appeasement of Hitler, led to a more bloody and extended war than would have been fought if they had been engaged earlier.

      There is IOW no alternative to striking Iran and shutting down their nuclear program and terrorist support, and soon-- within the next 6 months. The Iranians aren't stupid, they're busily accumulating missiles, ground-to-air rockets, tanks, artillery and ships designed to block the Strait of Hormuz. The longer the USA and Israel dawdle, make stupid attempts at appeasement and wait to fight Iran, to go and get this done with, the more difficult and bloody the coming conflict will be for both sides. Better to do it sooner rather than later.

And this, from President Mahmoud himself, says it all.

      Ahmadinejad also denounced critics of his nuclear diplomacy at home, saying their calls for compromise echo "the words of the enemy" and will not affect his government's handling of the nuclear dossier with the West.

The words of the enemy.  That’s us, folks.  The UN is worried that Iran will go the way of North Korea if we impose sanctions and get tough with them, but I think they’re already there.  Diplomacy from their direction is just a cover.

More:  Via Winds of Change I saw this article describing the changing front in Iraq.  And I’m not the only one to notice the United States’ changing strategy toward the entire conflict: confronting Iran locally and militarily.

No comments: