Subscribe Feed (RSS)The Economist on Iran
July 25th, 2007 by eyal | Filed under Politics. |
Print This Post
The economist is running an issue about Iran and of course a big part of it is about its foreign policy. Below is an excerpt from an article which is well written however has very questionable logic. Emphasis in the body is mine.
Nuclear proliferation | The riddle of Iran | Economist.com [no link]
Iran is a self-proclaimed theocracy. Yet it has conducted foreign relations since the revolution of 1979 in a way that seems perfectly rational even if it is not pleasant. Its president, the Holocaust-questioning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is widely reported to have threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”. But in fact he may never have uttered those precise words, and there is both ambiguity and calculation behind the bluster. Look closer and Mr Ahmadinejad is vague about whether he means that Iran should destroy Israel or just that he hopes for Israel’s disappearance. Knowing that a nuclear attack on Israel or America would result in its own prompt annihilation, Iran could probably be deterred, just as other nuclear powers have been. Didn’t Nikita Khrushchev promise to “bury” the West?
So let’s see what’s this “perfectly rational” but “not pleasant” foreign policy include:
1. Illegally building a nuclear facility and lying to the world about it
2. Ignoring the UN
3. Supporting insurgency groups in Iraq and supplying it with weapons and training
4. Building a guerrilla terrorist arm occupying the south of Lebanon to launch raids into neighbouring countries.
5. Kidnapping and holding captive British sailors from international waters
6. Threatening or “just” wishing for the annihilation of another country while pursuing nuclear weapons
7. Denying the holocaust and holding international conference meetings to discuss it “academically”
8. Finally, an American strike will lead to Iran firing hundreds of missiles at… Israel?
I think a pre-emtive strike against nuclear facilities in Iran is far more rational. Surely Iran can handle some unpleasantness too, no?
