Posted by
Joe on Friday, August 25, 2006 9:40:48 AM
When is the
international community going to move from being "concerned" and take
action on Iran? We are rapidly approaching the August 31 deadline
after which the United Nations is supposed to take up the issue of
sanctions if, as expected, the Iranian regime doesn't cease and desist
from it's uranium enrichment program. I completely agree with
Regime Change Iran on the likely outcome for any sanctions following the Iranian expression of interest in further negotiations:
This very temptation has worked wonders for the Iranians. Holding out the possibility of negotiations effectively neutralizes the Europeans, who love the idea of dialogue and engagement and hope that it will lead to solving the problem peacefully and reasonably, and it also makes it difficult for Russia and China to go along with sanctions in the United Nations Security Council, because they will argue that the diplomatic channel was not exhausted.
This
is exactly why the American Left cannot be trusted with our national
security. The Left never met a conflict they didn't want to solve with
layer upon layer of diplomacy. There is nothing inherently wrong with
diplomacy as a concept, but it can only be effective if it includes
both carrots and sticks. The problem is that while the international
community largely agrees on the carrots it can rarely, if ever, reach
unity on the sticks. The French, Russians and Chinese in particular
are loathe to impose sanctions when it might effect their own financial
interests and all it takes is for just one of these powers to exercise
a veto on the United Nations Security Council to prevent sanctions.
These nations are just looking for excuses to avoid or delay
sanctions. Rogue regimes know this and exploit the hesitancy with
calculated ruthlessness. The entire UN system is not designed
appropriately to impose any meaningful penalties on malcontent regimes.
What the Left
completely fails to comprehend is that the U.N. Security Council
"diplomatic" process is actually an impetus to military action outside
of the U.N. model. There may have been no need for the "coalition of
the willing" in Iraq if the United Nations had acted swiftly and
forthrightly in convincing Saddam to change his behavior. Right up to
the liberation, Saddam was convinced that Russia or France would
prevent any serious consequences from befalling him. If Saddam had
been told by his allies early on during the "diplomatic" process that
he had better come clean or else, he would not have been under the
illusion that he could cheat fate again.
The
current diplomatic process so beloved by liberals is corrupt to its
core. Diplomacy is a good and noble thing. A diplomatic process
enveloped in the tentacles of corruption and graft is doomed to empower
our enemies.