Unbelievable Appeasers
It's so moronic as to be almost a parody: An alleged news piece in today's LA Times opines that
It seemed like a good idea at the time: Increase the military, diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran to get the country to bow to the international community on its nuclear enrichment program and curtail its alleged troublemaking in Iraq.
But now, with 15 British sailors and marines held captive and Tehran threatening to withhold its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, that strategy has apparently backfired.
Where does the appeasement end? Note that there has been nothing but the "dialogue" and "negotiation" so beloved of the left with Iran, with less than nothing to show for it. All that's been done is to offer the kind of diplomatic carrots and sticks that, we are told, should solve all the world's problems. And yet, now, the left is apparently insisting that even those measures are simply too harsh. What's the upshot? Should the US allow crazy mullahs and one of the world's wackiest regimes to destabilize the entire Middle East, threaten Israel, and possibly pair terrorists with nukes, and simply stand aside nary a whimper of protest?
What's more, what's this about "Tehran threatening to withhold its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency"? Has it occurred to either Borzou Daragahi or Ramin Mostaghim -- the supposed "journalists" who authored this piece -- that Tehran's cooperation with the IAEA or the international community hasn't really been quite all one might hope, even up to now?
And has it occurred to them that the Iranians' behavior might be a sign that the pressures being imposed are getting to them? Or, in the alternative, that perhaps not quite enough pressure has yet been applied?
Of course not. In some quarters, there's only one narrative. US and George W. Bush: bad. Every other America-hating, insane regime in the world: misunderstood.
It seemed like a good idea at the time: Increase the military, diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran to get the country to bow to the international community on its nuclear enrichment program and curtail its alleged troublemaking in Iraq.
But now, with 15 British sailors and marines held captive and Tehran threatening to withhold its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, that strategy has apparently backfired.
Where does the appeasement end? Note that there has been nothing but the "dialogue" and "negotiation" so beloved of the left with Iran, with less than nothing to show for it. All that's been done is to offer the kind of diplomatic carrots and sticks that, we are told, should solve all the world's problems. And yet, now, the left is apparently insisting that even those measures are simply too harsh. What's the upshot? Should the US allow crazy mullahs and one of the world's wackiest regimes to destabilize the entire Middle East, threaten Israel, and possibly pair terrorists with nukes, and simply stand aside nary a whimper of protest?
What's more, what's this about "Tehran threatening to withhold its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency"? Has it occurred to either Borzou Daragahi or Ramin Mostaghim -- the supposed "journalists" who authored this piece -- that Tehran's cooperation with the IAEA or the international community hasn't really been quite all one might hope, even up to now?
And has it occurred to them that the Iranians' behavior might be a sign that the pressures being imposed are getting to them? Or, in the alternative, that perhaps not quite enough pressure has yet been applied?
Of course not. In some quarters, there's only one narrative. US and George W. Bush: bad. Every other America-hating, insane regime in the world: misunderstood.
posted by LadybugUSA at 3:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home