View Single Post
Old 02-22-2007, 08:49 AM   #6 (permalink)
Swift Sword
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: 10-23-05
Location: Carl Perkins' Cadillac
Posts: 772
Milani has some good ideas but I would go a little bit further.

Opening up trade a bit might have some very positive effects.

Even though it would help the Ayatollahs a bit in the short run with their cash flow problems there are several upsides:

1. Historically: in South America, in the wake of trade agreements and economic liberalization, hard line regimes renounced nuclear weapons ambitions and eventually melted away to varying degrees;

2. again, historically: influxes of wealth have a tendency to create new kinds of elites who, given time will demand social and political stature to match their fancier cars, homes and fine clothes and thus create a competing political bloc;

3. hopefully: an advancement of the material condition of the Iranian "Joe Six Pack" would make him more resistant to any regime or party's scheme to rollback said advances at a future date.

4. practically: an increase in cash flow is required if Iran is not going to become a failed state within a decade and I have a sneaky suspicion that a partially subsidized theocracy is preferential to a failed state in Iran;

5. pragmatically: regardless of what the future government of Iran looks like or what pattern it follows be it a democracy (prefferably) or something else, it serves U.S. and allied interests to have the Iranians and their trade aligned with the "West" rather than Russia and China.

I am not saying that we should give the current regime the keys to the store, rather that when you throw a dog a bone, even one that is strange and comes across as hostile, often times they might sit, roll over or wag their tail just the same.
__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?
Swift Sword is offline   Reply With Quote