3) I am not a huge fan of sanctions, and their ability to effect meaningful change is pretty unclear. (The hard data suggests they don't.)
-
If it were up to me — and don't worry, *it's not* — I would pursue a strategy of reassuring them that imminent strike is not going to happen, lay out some realistic deterrence "ground rules" that don't infringe on their sovereignty, and then tell them that we're ready to talk.
Maybe that would work in the short term, maybe it wouldn't. I am confident in our ability to deter them, manage them, contain them. They are a tiny, poor, weak country. The US is infinitely more a threat to them than they are a threat to the US — and they know this.
-
-
The long game is to wait for their regime to get tired of being the way it is, to start seeking other options. It happens eventually with even the worst regimes, because their way of life is patently unsustainable as it is. The saber-ratting and sanctions helps keep it alive.
-
But I'm a historian, not a diplomat or politician or even a political scientist. So I'm happy to entertain the idea that there are other sane ways to view the situation. But I don't see provoking a war — much less a possible nuclear war — as a sane approach.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.