fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

“Collective Action”

Lee Smith delivers the predictable (and predicted) “on to Damascus, then Tehran” argument. He also asks a very strange question: So why is the Obama administration wasting valuable time seeking support from Moscow and China in its efforts to isolate Iran? Maybe this is a trick question. The answer to this is that in order […]

Lee Smith delivers the predictable (and predicted) “on to Damascus, then Tehran” argument. He also asks a very strange question:

So why is the Obama administration wasting valuable time seeking support from Moscow and China in its efforts to isolate Iran?

Maybe this is a trick question. The answer to this is that in order to isolate Iran, one would need the cooperation of its largest trading partners, including Russia and China. Perhaps that cooperation won’t be forthcoming, or it may not be as extensive as an Iran hawk would like, but the reason for making the effort is obvious. One reason why past attempts to “isolate” Iran have fallen short is that Iran has many trading partners in Asia that have no desire to isolate it. This is partly because they see an advantage in continuing to do business with Iran, and partly because they do not have the same irrational obsession with Iran’s nuclear program that Western governments have. Smith’s real problem with “wasting valuable time” with all of this is that it delays the start of military action.

Smith also seems confused by what the phrase “collective action” means:

Collective action does not mean bringing the unmovable Russians and Chinese on board. It means going after Revolutionary Guard camps. It means destabilizing Iran’s ally Syria by creating a no-fly zone there that protects the Syrian opposition and helps bring down Bashar al-Assad. Collective action means using every possible method and tactic to destabilize the Iranian regime by working with allies inside and outside of Iran. It means doing everything possible to ensure that Ayatollah Ali Khameini, stripped of his clerical robes, is the next Middle East dictator dragged from a hole in the ground.

In other words, Smith doesn’t want “collective action” at all, but very much wants unilateral, aggressive U.S. action to topple two governments in open defiance of the U.N. Charter. Smith’s version of “collective action” is a repudiation of everything on which the idea of collective security is based, and it is a recipe for regional conflagration and chaos.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here