Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Banking on a loser

In The Business, Fraser Nelson argues that North Korea and Iran's nuclear ambitions are not hampered by sanctions or rhetoric.

Nelson notes that ...

Three years ago, President Bush said that he “would not tolerate” a nuclear North Korea – exactly the same form of words he uses for Iran now. But on Monday, the president moved the goalposts. He said it would be a “grave threat” if North Korea were to sell its nukes to anyone else. A nuclear North Korea, it seems, will be tolerated after all.

Quite. Nelson also opines ....

Iran is similarly unpredictable. We are aware of its ambitions, including wiping Israel “off the map”. We also know that the threat of mutually assured destruction will hold little sway over a leader who openly calls for the arrival of the 12th Imam whom he believes will arrive after an apocalyptic event on earth. The laws of nuclear standoff will not work with a maniac who thinks the death of 15m of his own countrymen is a reasonable price to pay for razing New York.

Good point, well made. Nelson finishes off his piece by saying .....

In his explosion last Monday, Kim demonstrated not only his resolve but the abject failure of the UN to stop him. There will be no serious talk about disarming him: North Korea has made it across the nuclear finish line.

The UN should save its outrage and recognise that only radically new tactics will prevent Iran from following suit.

Unfortunately, Nelson doesn't offer us any suggestions as to what those new tactics will be. All he does say is that "[s]anctions do not deter regimes bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, yet sanctions are the only way the West knows to act. Iran will rejoice at this collective failure of resolve, and nerve."

Sanctions are not the only way the west knows to act - they are the only way the UN and internationlists know to act - well, that and appeasement or abject surrender. The west has demonstrated that it has other strategies, but the UN and the internationalists have always acted to prevent the use of those. It would help enormously if more people were to come off the fence and actually say what they mean by "radically new tactics".

Any suggestions?

No comments: