Monday, August 27, 2007
Sarko and Iran: Talk loudly and carry a big baguette
The president of France, Nicholas Sarkozy, has spoken rather plainly on the subject of Iran:
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.
This is good stuff, because it sends a strong message to Tehran that the Iraqi strategy of dividing the West will not work twice. If leading Iranians believe that the United States and Europe are sufficiently united to impose and sustain damaging economic sanctions, the Iranian elites may be more willing to box off the hard-liners and put the nuke program on the table.
In addition, the European public is much more worried about Iran than it ever was about Saddam's Iraq. A bit more than a year ago I noted that the Pew Center Global Attitudes Survey had found that 77 percent of French had an "unfavorable" view of Iran compared to only 57 percent of Americans. Bashing Iran may be more popular in France even than in the United States, so Sarko may have more political room to get tough on the mullahs than the crippled presidency of George W. Bush. This leads inexorably to my questions: Have Sarkozy and Germany's Merkel toughened up on Iran because they are worried that George Bush is so unpopular at home that he cannot take the lead? Put differently, it is obvious that various powers are trying to take advantage of the weakness of the sitting American president -- Iran and Russia, for starters. Is it not also possible that France and Germany are asserting themselves more usefully because they know that strong leadership will not come from Washington for at least 18 months?
4 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Aug 28, 12:28:00 AM:
Talk is cheap. Neither France nor Germany, nor even a united Europe, has, at present, the tactical military reach to do anything effective against Iran.
They would have to position their limited air forces in Turkey to make even limited strikes across the border, and even though Turkey is part of NATO, ain't gonna happen.
No, I think they are staking out a position now in hopes that President Hillary will have some ground to stand on (domestically) so the the US Air Force and Navy (air force) will be doing the heavy lifting, should the need arise (hope not, frankly).
-David
By , at
Tue Aug 28, 04:49:00 AM:
By , at
Tue Aug 28, 07:13:00 AM:
Taken from "Also"
"The biggest challenge to the world was the avoidance of conflict between Islam and the West, President Sarkozy told the annual gathering of French ambassadors. Iran was the crossroads of the Middle East’s troubles and its nuclear aims “are without doubt the most serious crisis that weighs today on the international scene”, he said."
The problem with this statement is that it mirrors the statements made in the 30s. What will be the first state or peoples given over to Islam to avoid the larger conflict.
The conflict between those who would have the rest of us pay obeisance to Mohhammed and the rest of us is out in the open. We should not be party to any agreements which places the conflict back under the table.
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Tue Aug 28, 08:12:00 AM:
Just because the French are talking about military action against Iran doesn't necessarily mean that they intend, or even can, take the action themselves. As one of the 'Big Five' of the UN with significant influence in the Third World their blessing would count for a lot if some third party (Israel, for instance) stepped up to the proverbial plate.
Also, talking openly like this tells the Iranians that they cannot count on France to oppose such an actor the same way that Saddam counted on France.
