Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes

Charles Krauthammer notes the huge change in French foreign policy toward both the United States and Iran. He also notes the change in Congress, which is even more important. The recognition that Iran is acting against the US in Iraq is a huge first step in actually confronting Tehran.

WASHINGTON — Ahmadinejad at Columbia provided the entertainment, but Sarkozy at the U.N. provided the substance. On the largest possible stage — the U.N. General Assembly — President Nicolas Sarkozy put Iran on notice. His predecessor, Jacques Chirac, had said that France could live with an Iranian nuclear bomb. Sarkozy said that France cannot. He declared Iran's nuclear ambitions "an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world."

His foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, had earlier said that the world faces two choices — successful diplomacy to stop Iran's nuclear program or war. And Sarkozy himself has no great hopes for the Security Council, where China and Russia are blocking any effective action against Iran. He does hope to get the European Union to join the U.S. in imposing serious sanctions.

"Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace," he warned. "They lead to war." This warning about appeasement was intended particularly for Germany, which for commercial reasons has been resisting U.S. pressure to support effective sanctions…….

……..The French flip is only one part of the changing landscape that has given new life to Bush's Iran and Iraq policies in the waning months of his administration. The mood in Congress also has significantly shifted.

Just this week, the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for very strong sanctions on Iran and urging the administration to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist entity. A similar measure passed the Senate Wednesday by 76-22, declaring that it is "a critical national interest of the United States" to prevent Iran from using Shiite militias inside Iraq to subvert the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad.

A few months ago, the question was: Will the Democratic Congress force a withdrawal from Iraq? Today the question in Congress is: What can be done to achieve success in Iraq — most specifically, by countering Iran, which is intent on seeing us fail?

This change in mood and subject is entirely the result of changes on the ground. It takes time for reality to seep into a Washington debate. But after the Petraeus-Crocker testimony, the reality of the relative success of our new counterinsurgency strategy — and the renewed possibility of ultimate success in Iraq — became no longer deniable.

It is completely obvious that the United Nations is unable to do anything about thuggish regimes - whether they want to build nuclear weapons or not. Russia and China are blocking any increased sanctions against Iran. The only way pressure can be brought to bear is if France and the US can get Europe on board. Sarkozy sees the reality, "Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war." (Something I have been saying for a long time now.) It appears that Congress sees the same thing.

Nobody wants a war with Iran. But if real pressure is not brought down on Tehran soon, that war is inevitable. With the UN useless, the only way to accomplish that pressure is for the US and Europe to act unilaterally. I, for one, hope they can do it quickly.

• 

  By quilly mammoth, Friday, 28 September , 2007 @ 8:47 am

  The UN would long have been reformed had not the liberals played Iago to our efforts to reform it. As we again run commentary through the linguistic transmogrifyer we see this about President Bush’s take on Bolton’s departure:

  This was the most unkindest cut of all;
  For when the noble Caesar saw him stab,
  Ingratitude, more strong than traitors’ arms,
  Quite vanquish’d him: then burst his mighty heart;
  And, in his mantle muffling up his face,
  Even at the base of Pompey’s statua,
  Which all the while ran blood, great Caesar fell.
  O, what a fall was there, my countrymen!
  Then I, and you, and all of us fell down,
  Whilst bloody treason flourish’d over us.
  O, now you weep; and, I perceive, you feel
  The dint of pity: these are gracious drops.

• 

  By syn, Friday, 28 September , 2007 @ 9:18 am

  Meanwhile….here in free America Bruce Springsteen in his NBC Today Show concert is singing a song ‘Last to Die’ commentary about the mistake of going to war and while he is singing his depressingly stupid song his adoring audience is dancing, singing, drooling without one ounce of thought as to what he is singing.

  Perhaps one explanation as to why the UN with its various regressively Liberal humanitarians such as Springsteen and the groupies fail over and again is that they will not live in a world where their Happy is imposed upon.

• 

  By TimF, Friday, 28 September , 2007 @ 9:59 am

  Quilly,

  Lee Harris in his first book (Civilization and it’s Enemies) has a pretty thorough discussion (Chapter 3 or 4, titled appropriately The Grand Illusion) of why the UN can NEVER be effective against a large and/or committed opponent. The individual personalities don’t matter, its a structural thing.

• 

  By quilly mammoth, Friday, 28 September , 2007 @ 11:27 am

  Yes,as well as the UN is full of dictators and thugs who have no interest in seeing the Right Thing done in the world. Which is why when Sarkozy implies that he thinks the UN is worthless and that only other organizations can do the job it speaks volumes.

Other Links to this Post