After discussing Iran's defiance of the UN over its pursuit of nuclear weapons, the Telegraph goes into denial.
Mr Ahmadinejad's announcement came on the eve of a visit to Teheran by the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, and well before the deadline by which the Security Council had ordered Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. This defiance faces the council with a challenge similar to that presented by Saddam Hussein. Does it have the will to impose economic sanctions that will bite? Or will it shirk that option, confirming its irrelevance when it comes to maintaining international peace and security, and thus pushing America and its allies into taking action on their own?
Remind me again, how well 12 years of sanctions worked against Saddam? Remind me of how France, Russian and others ignored the sanctions, made Saddam and themselves rich and allowed Saddam to fund terrorists while developing WMDs.
Worse. Who does the Telegraph use to bolster their case against action over Iran? Seymour Hersh. Yes, the I lie and fudge things, Seymour Hersh.
Here's the Telegraph's solution to the problem.
We sincerely hope that this is a smokescreen, for, were Washington to resort to the first use of nuclear munitions on a developing and Muslim state, the diplomatic damage to the West would be infinitely greater than that inflicted by Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay combined. There are, however, many other, less apocalyptic, ways of putting pressure on Teheran. And, as with Iraq, it falls in the first instance on the UN to apply them.
Yep, ok, I'm listening. Go on. You were saying "many other" ways of putting pressure on Teheran. Er, can you name a few? Just a few? No? Hmmmm.
As for the UN, again remind me how well that worked out for Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda or any other place for that matter.
Bottom line? Nobody has yet to offer a viable alternative to dealing with a mad mullah of Iran with nukes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment