Realpolitik Argument For Diplomacy
In case you haven't noticed, I don't favor military action against Iran. So it really didn't take much convincing for me to agree with Fred Kaplan's article arguing against military action and for diplomacy.
It's an interesting article nonetheless. It basically argues for diplomacy with Iran, not because he thinks it will work, but because it will make it easier to impose economic sanctions which he believes WILL work, and will be more effective than dropping tactical nukes in stopping Iran's nuclear program.
I'm curious to hear your feedback on this.
It's an interesting article nonetheless. It basically argues for diplomacy with Iran, not because he thinks it will work, but because it will make it easier to impose economic sanctions which he believes WILL work, and will be more effective than dropping tactical nukes in stopping Iran's nuclear program.
I'm curious to hear your feedback on this.
posted by Ben at
11:18 PM
1 Comments:
I don't really have much time, so this is a quick gut response without having read the article.
My argument for diplomacy is, and always has been, that if it works, fantastic, but if it doesn't, we have the "well, at least we tried" argument on our side and its easier to convince other countries and the United Nations that non-military options have been exhausted. This sounds vaguely akin to your summary of the article, which I look forward to reading after work.
By
Mike, at 4/18/2006 10:01 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home