It’s fascinating to read the New York Times report on Sarkozy’s foreign policy address, in which the French president seemed to countenance violent action against Iran unless the mullahs abandon their nuclear weapons program. Elaine Sciolino writes:
Although Mr. Sarkozy’s aides said French policy had not changed, some foreign policy experts were stunned by his blunt, if brief, remarks.
“This came out of the blue,” said Francois Heisbourg, special adviser to the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris and author of a coming book on Iran’s nuclear program. “To actually say that if diplomacy fails the choice will be to accept a nuclear Iran or bomb Iran, this is a diplomatic blockbuster.”
Indeed it is, but it should be no surprise to those who have followed Sarko and I doubt it will be any surprise to the French people who no doubt have had enough of Islamism. No doubt too there will be a plethora jeers from their fuddy-duddy media, but I will await Nidra Poller’s report on that from PJM. (Saves me struggling with Larousse. They like big vocabulary words at Le Monde.)
I am looking between the lines at the venerable NYT. On 44th Street, they too are struggling, but not with Larousse. They are struggling with events. They don’t know how to deal with the Surge. Some of their own reporters seem to think it may be succeeding, although that knowledge has not infected the editorial page (and must give Frank Rich fevers). And now there’s Sarko. Despite pay the usual obeisance to global warming and American unilateralism in Iraq (how could he not?), he is proceeding as if he were an adjunct of the American Enterprise Insitute.
Mr. Sarkozy, who is often faulted for being too pro-American, proudly restated France’s friendship with the United States, where he spent a two-week vacation this summer.
In a move that is certain to be welcomed in Washington, he announced that France would send more troops to Afghanistan to train the Afghan Army, despite his statement during the campaign that France would not remain in Afghanistan forever. The Defense Ministry confirmed that France would send 150 additional troops.
He sounds like Rudy Giuliani’s new-best-friend. Or maybe Fred Thompson’s.
When I hear that Sarko is talking about sending French bombers then I’ll start to listen. Till then this is just more blah, blah let’s get the Americans they’ll do anything.
It’s very welcome blah blah, what a difference there might be now if he’d been pres instead of Chiraq in ’03.
I think it isn’t surprising that France and Germany have elected leaders who want to cooperate with, and express admiration for, the United States. The basic reason is that the economy of Europe and its prosperity depend on a cooperative United States. It is still the case that when the United States sneezes, Europe catches cold. The Bush Administration looked on benignly as the dollar fell nearly 50 percent against the Euro from 2001 to the present, with a very damaging effect on Europe’s export trade and jobs. (The change meant that Europe’s exports were competing against a dollar-oriented world that includes China and Japan, as well as the United States.) The economic downturn made Europe’s 2003 anti-American coalition of Schroeder in Germany and Chirac in France highly unpopular at home, and opened the door to candidates who rejected their anti-American positions. If I am right, expect Europe’s new leaders to press for American cooperation in a new Plaza accord rebalancing foreign exchange rates and relieving the pressure on European exports. The quid pro quo should be Europe’s agreement to sharply reduce agricultural subsidies and revive the Doha round.
“To actually say that if diplomacy fails the choice will be to accept a nuclear Iran or bomb Iran, this is a diplomatic blockbuster.”
It is a diplomatic blockbuster to say that our the choice is to do something or to do nothing? I suppose it is a diplomatic blockbuster to say anything at all.
150 troops. They must be planning a ground invasion of Iran from the east. That’s one soldier for every 14,700 unemployed people in France.
I’m surprised the Times didn’t go for the consensus misleading headline, “Sarkozy Cautions Against Attack on Iran.”
Roger, the Times moved from 44th St. a few months back. It is on Eighth Avenue now, across from Port Authority Bus Terminal. Hidden attraction of New York: The restored Daily Forward building near the East Broadway subway station.