Between a dictatorship of theocrats and a dictatorship of generals?
Dunno, but Secretary of State Clinton seems to want to make such a distinction in Iran.
Theocrats? We won’t deal with them, but they may be less inclined to repress their people.
Militarycrats? We won’t deal with them, but they don’t care what happens to their people.
So, what are the choices for others in the region, according to Secretary Clinton?
1) Do nothing about Iran.
2) Go nuclear, like Iran.
3) Ask the US for help, either to defend against Iranian nukes or provide nukes for some post-Cold War version of collective security.
We apparently prefer option 3.
And it’s all utter nonsense.
Why should we again promote arms proliferation in a region where our only interest is the free flow of oil?
Might it not be better to cut a deal with the Iranians and balance our interests between Shiite and Sunni dictatorships?
Might it not be even better to reduce or eliminate our dependency on unstable petrocracies, perhaps via stiff consumption taxes on fossil fuels, thus making energy alternatives economically viable?
What we’ll do instead is absolutely nothing in an election year, don’t after all want to be called soft on the Axis of Evil!
Gorilla says: “You can take the politician out of the diplomacy, but you can’t take the diplomat out of politics!”
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Iran