Tuesday, February 06, 2007

`Let's talk to Iran and Syria' - the latest appeasement prozac

The latest big idea circulating among the appeasement groupies in the West involves the miraculous cure all of diplomacy in dealing with Iran and Syria.

This was a major part of the Iraq Study Group report, and its continued to gather steam in certain circles. Some members of Congress have been publicly saying that they would do all in their power to prevent the US from launching any military action against Iran...something the mullahs are no doubt chuckling about over their morning tea.

In Britain, this sentiment is even more pronounced. A new report entitled `Time to Talk' has just come out, backed by a coalition including the Muslim Council of Britain, Amicus, Leftist trade unions, Oxfam, and the Foreign Policy Center, a left-leaning think tank headed by the usual slew of retired diplomats.

According to this line of reasoning, any military action against Iran is `unthinkable', Iran is years away from nuclear weapons and the way to solve all of the problems in Iraq and in the Middle East is simply to `talk to Iran and Syria.'

Let's take a look at that, shall we?

Negotiations between nations only work when two factors are present: first, both nations must be convinced that they have something to gain by negotiating that they can't obtain any other way, and second, both nations must be convinced of the other party's trustworthiness and willingness to keep agreements.

Based on that, successful negotiations with Iran and Syria are pretty much a non-starter.

For instance, what would we want from Iran and Syria? Most likely, for Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment program (they've already said unequivocally that they won't) and for Iran and Syria to end their interference in Iraq and their sponsorship of the Shiite militias in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

What baksheesh would they want in return? At a minimum, Iran would undoubtedly want a totally free hand in developing its nuclear weaponry and the US out of the region almost entirely. Iran and Syria would both want US acquiescence to their control of Lebanon, and Syria would undoubtedly want US pressure on Israel to give up the strategic area of the Golan Heights so that it could once again be used for artillery and missile attacks against northern Israel and a staging ground for a future jihad.

So, the question lingers...what would we be willing to give up to bribe these people into an agreement? Allowing Iran a free hand to develop nuclear weapons? Selling out Lebanon or Israel? Exiting the region and trusting to Iran and Syria's good will?

The only reason for Iran or Syria to talk to the US would be to extract a price. And the word for that isn't `diplomacy'- it's extortion.

And, even assuming that we paid the price demanded by Iran, what effect would it have on the region and our allies there? What effect would it have on US credibility? And what guarantee do we have that Iran and Syria would abide by their part of any agreement? Those questions aren't being asked by the west's appeasement minded politicians or their allies in the dinosaur media.

Fascist regimes have a noticeably poor track record when it comes to keeping agreements. Britain and France found that out with Hitler, the US found it out with Stalin, and the Israelis found it out with Arafat. That's particularly true of Islamist regimes, which make it a virtue and a religious duty to deceive the infidel in order to advance jihad and Islam.

For almost thirty years Iran has been in a de facto state of war with us. It's time we did something decisive about it, rather than grasping at the illusion of an easy fix.

No comments: