Freaks with Bombs

From the New York Times:

To Europeans, the latest example of Washington's failure to recognize their diplomatic preferences is its stance on Iran. The European Union will press Mr. Bush to support the European initiative with Iran that envisions rewards if Iran gives up important nuclear activities, an approach the United States rejects.

In "On the Beach", the great story about life after the Day After (anyone else remember that incredibly unintentionally funny 1983 ABC TV movie about WW3?) the Big One is started when a Nasser-like Egyptian leader drops a big bomb on Washington, DC and New York City. The U.S. thinks the Soviets did it, and retaliates and off we went to Armageddon. The prescient lesson at a time when only the really big countries had the bomb is that we just can't trust the freaks with the future of humanity.

So it worries people when North Korea says it has the Bomb and Iran insists it's not trying but no one believes that at all.

When I was in college I had a poster of a hydrogen bomb explosion. A friend of mine thought this was terrifying and asked me if I weren't afraid of this sort of thing. Sure, I said, but if and when WW3 comes, it'll likely come from either a local US or Soviet commander acting a fool (like what might have happened in Cuba had we invaded) or from some nimrod country with nothing to lose. For the US and USSR the bombs were Sampson weapons, something you threaten with when all else seems lost. You don't burn down the town you're trying to take over unless you're going to lose it anyway, and if you can't have it, you'll be damned if the other guy does.

Maniacs don't have the luxury of this logic. The big bombs serve as equalizers, where rooty poots get to act big, and since they generally don't run anything too many people would miss if it got blasted off the face of the earth, they have little to lose. Except a seat in Heaven or legendary status in their own minds.

Bush's take is to:

a) refuse the obvious bribe,
b) loudly threaten isolation, and
c) quietly threaten force.

The likely response to this from today's Dear Leaders and mad mullahs is:

a) ask again,
b) laugh at being cut off when the US has no leverage to enforce that, and
c) consider this additional justification for building the bombs as deterrent.

The US has spent decades "isolating" Cuba to no effect. As long as Europe and Latin American continue relations, it hurts but it's not fatal. The Europeans are using their continued relationship with Iran to gain political leverage on this issue. They're not going to shut that off just because Bush asks them too. Iran offers then a unique place to forge a unique EU voice, they're not giving that up. And South Korea is attempting to do in the North what even many conservatives say is the best way to bring down Castro, flood the island with capitalism. They're not likely to stop doing that either, just 'cause Bush asks them too.

So we're left with bribe or bomb. Bribing worked under Clinton. North Korea built no bombs, threatened no one who lived outside of the country. Bombing Iran just weakens whatever political energy the democrat moderates might have, and overextends an already ridiculously overextended American military.

So the answer's simple. Cut 'em checks, on the grounds that we get real boots on the ground willing and able to effectively monitor nuclear facilities. Iran gets expanded economic ties. North Korea gets some cash to turn the lights back on. It's so simple.

But it gets in the way of Bush Co. pride. So it won't happen. At least soon.

BTW, if you've never read "On the Beach" or seen the movie, don't. It's pretty depressing.