The Politics of No

This Post is also available atThe Blogger News Network

You can say this about the Iranian Mullah’s, at least they are consistent. Once again the Iranian’s have been given plum after plum by the European Union and once again, Whitey has been snubbed. I absolutely marvel at events like this. I stand befuddled by the fact that the Mullah’s aren’t even popular enough with their own populace, save the thugs they employ as morality police, but yet they are savvy enough to bring down mighty and powerful first world nations like the much ballyhooed “EU-3,” Great Britain, France, and Germany. I’d say something completely juvenile like, “In your face Europe,” except that I’m actually on their side and this latest rejection by the Mullahs of Iran constitutes not just a serious danger but a major setback in attempting to de-nuclearize the global village.

According to CNN.com, “Iran insisted Sunday it would resume uranium conversion this week after rejecting European Union incentives to end its nuclear fuel work, and said it was not worried about being referred to the United Nations for possible sanctions.”

The aforementioned plums the EU offered were a package of economic and political incentives. Some of the economic incentives were improved trade relations with the EU, and guarantee of alternative nuclear fuel sources from Europe and Russia. The 35-page EU proposal also contained an offer of help with developing a civilian nuclear program in Iran. This generous proposal was designed to persuade Tehran to halt nuclear fuel work for good and specifically stop enriching uranium, which would eventually find its way into an ICBM.

The Mullah’s in their infinite wisdom decided to reject the proposal because, according to them, it did not recognize Iran's right to enrich uranium. They added that they intend to restart the Isfahan nuclear plant, a major site of contention, just as soon as IAEA surveillance equipment is in place.

However, hope is at hand…the Mullahs will still negotiate with the EU! (Place sarcasm here)

The next step for the EU and the Iranian Mullahs is for the former to refer the latter to the United Nations Security Council. Of course nothing in politics, global or otherwise is a simple process. The EU has called an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) board of governors for Tuesday to discuss referring Iran to the Security Council if it goes ahead with plans to break U.N. seals and resumes work at the Isfahan uranium conversion plant.

The Iranians have said, “We ain’t skereed, East Siiiiide!” or something like that.

"Although we think referral of Iran's case to the Security Council would be unlawful and politically motivated, if one day they refer Iran's case...we won't be worried in the least," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi.

So now the game of chicken has begun between East and West. Really it’s been going on all along, probably since the advent of modern Saudi Arabia and Israel, but we’ll say this is the beginning of the most recent round. This whole affair where the West offers everything but their own abdication and the kitchen sink to the Muslim leaders and they respond with a cacophony of, “No’s” is not new. It’s the summation of how Israeli-Palestinian peace-talks have gone since Arab nations stopped formerly declaring war the Jews.

The biggest example of how the Muslims have used, “No,” as their overall strategy in thinking they can defeat the West occurred at the Camp David peace summit in July of 2000. At Camp David, Israel offered generous concessions in order to pacify Yasser Arafat and finally create a Palestinian homeland. Mind you, since the splitting of Palestine between them and Israel in the mid-20th century, the Palestinians have been offered their own country on the prime part of the real estate time and time again. Their answer was usually an anti-Semitic and petulant, “No!”

At Camp David, it has been said that if Yasser Arafat had accepted the offer made by then President Bill Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, it was entirely likely that the nation of Israel would not exist today; such was the near suicidal generosity of the West and Israel. Subsequent negotiations after Camp David with even more concessions were met with yet another round of resounding, “No’s.” At the time, former Saudi Ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar even said of Arafat, “If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won't be a tragedy, it will be a crime.”

Other than saying no to everything, Arafat’s strategy for trying to make peace with the West was starting a new round of homicide bombings against Israeli civilians and topping it off with a revisionist history of what went down at Camp David.

And why shouldn’t the Arabs/Muslims just keep on saying, “No,” until they are sufficiently in control of their own destiny? Their leadership has no respect for their own people, so sanctions and starvation aren’t going to work. This of course has been the problem with North Korea thus far. There’s no pressure on the people or person who actually makes the decisions because he isn’t in jeopardy of losing his seat of power nor is he starving. Much like in Vietnam of yesteryear or Iraq today, nobody has to give up…they live there. They’ve got forever and a day to fight for what they believe is right. We’re the interlopers whom are just chomping at the bit to return to the normalcy of isolationism.

In addition, no matter how many sanctions you place on a country or how many times you refer them to the perpetually flaccid United Nations, said country will always find a way to flout the constriction/punishment. They will have cohorts whom are willing to trade with them despite world opinion and common sense dictating otherwise, such as in North Korea and China; or you’ll have a situation like with the UN Oil-For-Food program which allowed former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to pee in the face of justice for nearly a decade. Again, I’m sure the Mullahs are studious students of history whom have learned much from Vietnam, Iraq, Yasser Arafat and Iraq.

Quite simply put, it’s good politics to just keep saying, “No,” because eventually the West will either make a suicidal offer or you’ll just have more time to kill even more Westerners on whatever timetable you please. The West is going to have some deep, deep problems because half of us think that you can reason with murderers just because they are currently smiling at you and the other half believe you should kill the murderer, his family, and burn down his neighborhood and kill everyone that looks like him. As usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle. At some point the West has to maintain the line in sand and make the ugly choices. At some point, we must all grow up and accept that the Iranian Mullahs, just like Arafat, don’t really want to make peace or compromise. This is a stalling tactic to make widespread murder and we’re standing for it like slack-jawed yokels.