Sanctions That Work
What might those be when dealing with a recalcitrant and brutal regime supremely entitled by their fanatical theism to do as they will, brooking no interference from any outside agencies? A regime, moreover, so self-indulgent and righteously entitled that it recognizes no authority outside that of the Spirit it purports to worship? A fundamentalist collective utterly dedicated to the furtherance of their ambition to sweep aside all outside denials of their sovereign designs to pose a nuclear threat to the world?How then does the international community communicate its urgency to the paranoid regime convinced the world plans to irremediably harm it's interests and the regime's longevity, if it can? Have sanctions and the threat of further sanctions helped to persuade Robert Mugabe that he has an obligation to starving Zimbabweans? Have sanctions aided the international community to convince Kim Jong-il that his designs to perfect nuclear warheads and their missiles must cease, and he must use the country's scarce treasury to feed his starving people?
Have sanctions convinced the totalitarian government of Burma to relent in their incarceration of the legally-elected head of state, the long-suffering Aung San Suu Kyi? If anything the threats of sanctions have made these tyrannical oppressors more defiant, more determined to pursue their destructive course of action. And so it is with the Islamic Republic of Iran, by turns enraged and amused at the temerity of the West in its pursuit of nuclear abandonment by Iran.
European intelligence agencies confirm that Tehran may have reached the final stage of designing a functional nuclear warhead. The Republic Guard is unrelenting in its determination to have and to threaten to use, and perhaps to use nuclear warheads tipped onto far-reaching missiles. Their intimidation function is paramount to the regime. Their functionality as weapons to be used against their enemies uppermost in their minds.
Like India, Pakistan, North Korea and Syria, Iran's economy cannot afford to both feed the hungry and support the thrust toward nuclear proliferation. Unlike India, North Korea and Syria - and above all Iran - cannot be trusted, on their past record to store their nuclearized weaponry with no intention of using them; having them for their deterrence value, for the prestige of owning them in a world that values military weaponry as an expression of a country's power and image.
A study by the Institute for International Economics examined the effectiveness of imposing sanctions on countries for the purpose of expressing a need for change. When sanctions are used to impose a change of regime or to impair a country's military goals, they have seldom met with success; the vulnerable population may suffer, as most certainly happened in Iraq, but the overseers thrive and resume their intended goal.
The study concludes, ominously enough, that "Sanctions can often galvanize public support for stricter and harsher reprisals later". If and when push actually comes to shove, the potential for military action against a totalitarian theocracy adamant that they have the right to endanger the world, may yet become a reality. And woe to us all. Above all, the people of Iran.
Labels: Technology, Terrorism, Traditions, United Nations
posted by Pieface @ Monday, October 05, 2009
<< Home