"Aggressive Diplomacy" With Iraq, From the "Realists"

"Realism" requires, well, a realistic appraisal of the situation. Those, such as John Kerry and James Baker who press for "diplomacy" with Iran have to answer some questions.

If you want someone to do something they are not inclined to do, you either have to offer them an inducement for doing so, or a credible threat if they do not act as you wish. Since most proposing "diplomacy" are decidedly not in the "threat" camp -- they wish to avoid any futher wars at all costs (including the invetibably more deadly future wars), it's time for the "realists" to explain what inducements/concessions/appeasements to Iran they will offer up for its "help" in stablizing Iran.

It's not exactly a mystery what Iran wants. So which of the following are Baker and Kerry willing to offer? Note that Iran will almost certainly demand several, if not all, of the following:

1) Massive foreign aid. This is the least offensive appeasement, and it still offends mightily. Because we know that Iran is using a large amount of the money it has to fund terrorism; common Iranians even complain about this. Foreign aid then will go directly into funding terrorism. And don't claim that we will "ensure the aid goes to the people." Money is fungible. If American money goes "to the people," that immediately frees up more Iranian money to go to the terrorists. Aid "to the people" reduces the amount of money Iran has to spend internally and allows them to spend more externally. Or, at best, it allows them to spend the same amount to support terrorism while paying no domestic political price for such a diversion of funds, as Uncle Sam will now be propping up Ahmadinejad's corrupt terror regime and making him more popular with his people. You can't have bread and circuses, they say, but you actually can, as long as an external deep pockets benefactor is paying you money so that you can have both.

2) Freedom to pursue the nuclear bomb without even the minor harrassment of the IAEA or UN, and of course a promise to not act militarily -- or even economically or dipomatically -- against Iran for doing so. Is John Kerry willing to concede this?

3) A free hand to reconquer Lebanon.

4) A free hand to conduct terrorism against Israel, and, in fact, a free hand to fulfill Ahmadinejad's often-stated "campaign promise" of "wiping Israel clean from the face of the earth."

5) The evacuation of American troops from Iraq, to be replaced by Iranian "peace keepers," who will of course effectively take over Iran. (See Lebanon; also see the Iranian proxy-army Hezbollah.)

Several, if not all, of the above have to be offered to Iran in order for it to "bring stability" to Iraq, by taking it over. But what is "stability" worth? If Iran does "stabilize" Iraq as a new terrorist haven, using a good part of its oil money for further terrorism, have we gained from the "stabilization" of Iraq? Or have we actually lost?

Germany was "destabilized" by American, British, and Russian military action in the forties. We could have had "stability" there, too -- simply giving Hitler all he wanted would have avoided much of the war. (At least the war with the West-- Russia he wanted to destroy.)

"Stability" is not a good outcome when the "stability" envisioned is the creation of a stable, prosperous, money-producing state which is your enemy and will work to destroy you.

If that's the "stability" Kerry and Baker seek -- and Bush himself seems open to -- I for one would rather have a very unstable Iraq, too weak to act against us.

I really wish some MSM manniquin would quiz Kerry and Baker at precisely how many of the above inducements they're willing to offer Iran in exchange for giving Iraq to Iran as a client-state satrapy. But of course they won't.

And note that what we get in return from Iran is simply not anything that benefits us -- what we get out of Iran's "help" in stabilizing Iraq is in fact just the right to give a further inducement to Iran: a brand new country it can control and take money from to advance terrorism against Israel, the West, and America.

So "negotions" can only result in one outcome: Iran will be greatly strengthened by US concessions, in exchange for which the US gets to greatly strengthen Iran by further concessions.

This is much like paying someone $100 for the right to pay him another $100. Sure, "negotiations" will be "succesful" in the sense that you will readily have agreement from your counterpart, as he will gladly agree to allow you to pay him $100 for the right to give him another $100.

But how, exactly, does that improve your own situation? Seems to me you're now down by two bills with nothing to show for it.

And such is the tough, strong plan of the "realists."

posted by Ace at 09:49 PM

| Access Comments