The Nobel Peace Prize has renewed prestige in my book. No, not because Barack Obama won it for accomplishments to be determined later. It's got new luster because Shirin Ebadi has, at great personal risk, effectively come out for regime change in her native Iran.
Ebadi, who won the Peace Prize six years ago (under the old rules whereby recipients were expected to do something to earn the prize before receiving it), is Iran's premier human rights lawyer. In an interview with the editors of the Washington Post, Ebadi "suggested that the nature of Iran's regime is more crucial to U.S. security than any specific deals on nuclear energy."
Her point is precisely the same point made by so-called neoconservatives for years. The problem with Iran is its regime; its nuclear program is merely a symptom of that problem.
Do you lay awake at night worrying about Britain's nuclear weapons? France's? Israel's? Of course not, because stable democracies in general, and stable democratic allies in particular, aren't a threat.
If your neighbor is an upright and responsible citizen, who cares if he has a gun? If your neighbor is a complete whackjob and criminal, you sure as Shinola care if he has a gun. Armed neighbors aren't a problem, dangerous ones are. The same logic applies to nations.
"Imagine if the government actually promised to stop its nuclear program tomorrow," Ebadi told the Post. "Would you trust this government not to start another secret nuclear program somewhere else?"
It's a profound and fundamental point. We've gotten many such promises from the North Koreans. They are worthless. Promises from oppressive regimes cannot be trusted any more than promises from Tony Soprano could be. If a government is willing to betray its own people on a daily basis, what makes anyone think that it won't betray its geopolitical adversaries?
Continued... |