We must stop Bush bombing Iran, and stop Iran getting the bomb (Euro-Surrender alert)

Guardian Unlimited ^ | 2/8/07 | Timothy Garton Ash

[standingfirm]

A new Plan A, with more American carrots and European sticks, is necessary. But don't count on it working

We should not bomb Iran to prevent Iran getting the bomb. The consequences would be disastrous. After Iraq, US or Israeli military action against this regionally powerful, oil-producing Shia muslim country would make the world a still more dangerous place. The cure would be worse than the disease. That's what a new report from a diverse coalition of British organisations says, and it is right.

But this is not enough. Joining with wiser heads in Washington to prevent George Bush making a final gung-ho blunder is only a preliminary to the real business. Anyone who, after a bracing afternoon walk chanting "stop the war" and "stop Bush", goes home thinking they have made the world a safer place needs to think some more. If we don't bomb Iran, Iran is quite likely to get the bomb.

If Iran gets the bomb, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others in the Middle East will be tempted to follow. The last barriers to nuclear proliferation, already breached by North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel, could rapidly break - in the most volatile region in the world. The risk of nuclear war will then be greater than it was in the 1980s, when CND, END and other west European peace movements marched against new US and Soviet missile deployments.

The likely scale of the nuclear conflict is much smaller than a superpower nuclear apocalypse, but that in itself makes it more not less probable that an unhinged leader would take the risk. On the available evidence, the Islamic Republic of Iran is trying to edge towards a

[standingfirm]

This is the best leftist analysis I've read on how (not) to deal with your enemies. Carrots and sticks. Of course, the sticks can't be military. Give me a barf bag.

[Reaganesque]

Maybe if we got down on our knees and said "pretty please" they'll stop their efforts to build a nuclear bomb? Maybe a box of chocolates too?

[MikeA]

Two mutually exclusive goals mentioned there in the title.

[snowrip]

The cure would be worse than the disease. That's what a new report from a diverse coalition of British organisations says, and it is right.

I have given up reading this type of crap as of this article. A decade ago it was humorous; now it is simply a waste of time. The Europeans are qualified to write about anything regarding antiterrorism, national defense, or anything remotely associated with rational thought because...?

[tobyhill]

Europe has no sticks and just let the Muzzies run all over them on their own soil.

[mainepatsfan]

I'm sure they'd have argued in 1939 that Britain must get German troops out of Poland without resorting to war.

[steel_resolve]

If we don't bomb Iran, Iran is quite likely to get the bomb.

Leftists caught by their own stupidity ping

[Eva]

There was an article about the French oil company, Total SA, in the WSJ that pretty much laid out the reasoning behind the French foreign policy ---oil. France has none and all the rogue states of the world have plenty. Anywhere there is a US hating dictator in an oil producing country, France is taking the anti-US position. The new CEO of total is still under investigation for the oil for food scandal and is entering into an agreement with Iran for an off-shore natural gas field.

This was an excellent article, complete with a map of the countries where Total has interests. There was no editorializing, it just gave the facts and the history of the companies' dealings with rogue states.

Oh, and there is also a picture of the new CEO, whose nickname is "The Big Mustache", in reference to his handlebar mustache. The man looks like something out of a comedy show.

[EagleUSA]

The pandering cowardice of the left continues to provide encouragement to terrorists and all enemies of the FREE (non-communist/socialist) world.

[RC2]

I agree here. I woke up this morning thinking.....we are getting flooded with news of the middle east.....I don't care about them any more and really don't want to hear about them. Iran's military was rated as the third in the world but Iraq's military, which was rated fourth in the world, kicked their butts. Why do we have to hear about muslims all the time....is there a hidden agenda here?

For the answer to all this......if we pull out of Iraq, let the middle east do what they want. If they want to fight each other, let them. Simply tell them to take care of themselves but don't bother us or we will level them. I'm tired of them and their stupid antics. So far they have shown that they are a bunch of sand bums and offer nothing to the world betterment other than oil, which we developed for them. Enough is enough. Give Iraq a date, unknown to anyone, and hold to it. Get out.

[expatpat]

The Guardian doesn't represent Europe, any more than the NYT represents the USA.

[jwparkerjr]

re: and those are in the hands of the Europeans

Say no more. If the outcome of any situation depends on the Europeans doing anything but appeasing then you can hang it up.

We learned the hard way in 10 plus years of trying to deal with Iraq in some way short of invading and we came to a dead end with everything we tried. Then the oil for food scandal came to light and it was suddenly abundantly clear why nothing we did had the desired effect. The Euroweenies were stabbing us in the back. And they'll do it again. In fact, my guess is they're doing it right now.

This is very much like sending your kid to bed with no supper and then having mom or grandmom take them up food behind your back.

Sanctions don't work, at least not when they are too little to start with and your 'friends' do everything they can to defeat them.

I think with a little bit of political finesse we could get the Europeans to go along with sanctions and not try to get around them behind our back.

Tell them what we want in the way of sanctions, tough enough to get Iran's attention and tell them that we expect them to not only support the effort in the UN but we also expect them to help us enforce them.

Tell them if they don't do it, and do it right, then we will be forced to use military force and when that happens they are the ones to blame because they made any other avenue ineffective.

Somehow we've got to get the blame where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of 'allies' who play both ends against the middle.

I'm not buying this BS that the cure is worse than the disease. The disease is a nuclear armed Iran whose goal is to obliterate Israel regardless of the cost to itself. Deterrence doesn't work when one side doesn't fear or respect the prospect of being destroyed.

When times were really tough my Mom used to smile and tell me, "Someday you'll be calling these the 'good-old-days." I thought she was just saying that, but darned if the old Cold War with it's dependence on MAD wasn't better than today's world where any one of a dozen or more countries can unleash nuclear destruction, and in some cases not fear retribution in the least.

I guess it must somehow be in there genes or something, but the Euroweenies are going down the same road now they traveled before getting their butts in a sling 70 years ago. And darned if they aren't trying, once again, to get us to join them in that sling.

Once Iran or Syria has 'the bomb' all bets are off. Even military action won't do the job at that point.

[standingfirm]

Well said, there will always be the appeasers, the Neville Chamberlains of the world. If the left doesn't think the current regime in Iran will use it's nukes, they should just listen to what they have been saying and saying and saying again. "The time has come and will soon come for the destruction of Israel and the United States". I know that sounds far-fetched, especially the US, but just try to envision a couple of well placed suitcase style nukes in D.C or NYC.

Let's not forgot how one fateful day in September knocked out our economy for quite a while. I shudder to imagine what a nuclear bomb would do to us. How long would it take to recover from that? But it's precisely what this regime has in mind. I do not think for 2 seconds they wouldn't be willing to buy such a device. They are for sale, somewhere.

How could we prove whodunnit? Terrorism is beyond uniforms and borders. Who would we retaliate against? Would we bomb Mecca? How would that help us other than appease our anger?

[snowrip]

I agree with a tough strategy for getting Iraq on its own feet, but giving them a date will result in nothing more than patient Al Qaida and Iranian mercinaries.

It took nine years to restore Germany. We had millions of men under arms at the time. It will likewise take time to restore Iraq to a democracy, but the stabilization is nearly complete. There are 18 provinces in Iraq... there is violence in three of them.

Of course there is a leftist agenda with the mainstream media. It has a vested interest in an American defeat in Iraq, and because the US can only be defeated on the home front the mainstream media reports only defeatist news.

That's why you get your news here.

[twonie]

Let the sickos die from Euremic poisoning. They bought it and paid for it and have done so for years. They deserve it.

[Freedom_Fighter_2001]

Peace through weakness.

[Courdeleon02]

Lets be intelligent about this matter. An attack on Iran will only strengthen the little Hitler who is now becoming increasingly unpopular. The little Hitler would love us to attack him. He could then smother his opposition and unite his country against the U.S. At this time there is no pressing need to attack. We should wait and try to embolden little Hitler's enemies within his own country. His government could fall and perhaps we could come to an agreement with a new regime. Iranians do like Americans, if we attack now they will all hate us.We need to play other cards first. There will be plenty of time to attack if the situation becomes critical.

[usurper]

OMG

Did you read the thread after the article? These people are certifiable. I feel like I need a bath.