Sending Signals

In a real turnaround in French policy,  Nicolas Sarkozy has issued a surprisingly blunt warning to both Iran and the West: either ratchet up the sanctions on Tehran or face having to bomb Iran. A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable to France. He also made a number of other rather blunt statements in his speech.

In his first major foreign policy speech, Sarkozy emphasized his existing foreign policy priorities, such as opposing Turkish membership of the European Union and pushing for a new Mediterranean Union that he hopes will include Ankara.

He also presented some new ideas, such as possibly renewing high-level dialogue with Syria and expanding the Group of Eight industrialized nations to include the biggest developing states.

Sarkozy said a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable and that major powers should continue their policy of incrementally increasing sanctions against Tehran while being open to talks if Iran suspended nuclear activities.

"This initiative is the only one that can enable us to escape an alternative that I say is catastrophic: the Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran," he said, adding that it was the worst crisis currently facing the world.

Tehran says it only wants to generate electricity but it has yet to convince the world's most powerful countries that it is not secretly pursuing nuclear weapons.

Sarkozy criticized Russia for its dealings on the international stage. "Russia is imposing its return on the world scene by using its assets, notably oil and gas, with a certain brutality," he said.

"When one is a great power, one should not be brutal."

Sarkozy has, at least, acknowledged the choices the West has at this point. Contrary to the left's dark forebodings, nobody is contemplating an attack on Tehran at the moment, but a window is closing rapidly and the West is running out of time before being handed two equally unattractive options. The failure to deal with Iran effectively is making war more likely, not less. That isn't good for anyone.

Rich started a bit of a ruckus by hammering at the use of historical analogy to try to look at (and address) today's events. It is always attractive to try to say that the situation with Iran right now is like 1938. I have made allusions to historical similarities in the past, but I think I spelled out my feelings about using historical analogies in this post.

I have always thought that Santayana meant his famous words in the long view of history, over many centuries. It is also somewhat applicable in the shorter term, of course. So this may well be quite like 1938 right now, Cohen is not the first to see this possibility. It may be like 1914 as well. It could also be argued that it has aspects very like Vienna in 1683 for that matter.

Or it could be what we need to face up to today, remembering that which has passed before.

We can, and should, note similarities to past events if only to remind ourselves what went wrong – or right – in a given situation. That does not mean we should treat every aspect of what is happening today the exact same way – or in exactly the opposite way – as some past crisis. But we have the example of 1938 and the failure of appeasement as a reminder of what happens if the West fails to act. I rather think Sarkozy is one of the first leaders in "Old" Europe to note that openly.