Ethelred, a dubious role model
What to do with Iran? The Europeans subscribe to the idea that offering the mullahs enough carrots will make them quit their nuclear ambitions. The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday put this policy in its proper perspective:
The statement that "rogue regimes rarely stay bribed" reminded me of the story of Ethelred the Unready. Ethelred, a descendant of Alfred the Great, came to power in 978, and inherited a peaceful and prosperous England. Churchill, in his History of the English Speaking Peoples, describes Ethelred in less-than-flattering terms:
Alfred battled Viking raiders throughout his reign, and made many payoffs to the Viking kings when thought it to his advantage. If Alfred didn't believe he could win a battle, and the raiders could only win with much bloodshed, a payoff made sense to both parties, and tribute was paid to the Vikings while Alfred kept his forces intact and plotted his next move.
Churchill contrasts Alfred with Ethelred: "We have seen that Alfred in his day had never hesitated to use money as well as arms. Ethelred used money instead of arms. He used it in ever-increasing quantities, with ever-diminishing returns."
In 991, Ethelred paid the invaders 10,000 pounds of silver for peace. By 994, the Vikings wanted more, and 16,000 pounds bought eight more years of peace. The price in 1002 was 24,000 pounds of silver, and Ethelred again paid. Sweyn, King of Denmark, demanded 36,000 pounds in 1006, and Ethelred paid. According to Churchill, this sum was 3-4 years' national income. Finally, Ethelred paid the Vikings 48,000 pounds of silver in 1012.
"Finally," not because the Vikings finally left England alone, but because the Vikings came back in 1013, took most of England, caused Ethelred to flee to Normandy, and claimed the throne.
The Journal notes that "British Foreign Minister Jack Straw says he cannot see 'any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran.'" Really. If keeping nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands is important to the world (and everyone seems to agree that it is), then Straw's comments only serve to evoke the desperation of Ethelred, and tell Iran that Europe has plenty of carrots, and nary a stick.
As it is, even if the Europeans were sincere, the deal being considered for Iran is certain to fail. The Iranians have already publicly forsworn any interest in nuclear weapons: Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi insists that Islam itself forbids their development. So just what purpose is served by another attestation of Iran's fidelity to the NPT?
Perhaps Tehran's good faith may yet be purchased with (Airbus) planes and WTO membership. But what guarantee is there that the arrangement will last? As we have seen with North Korea, rogue regimes rarely stay bribed, and the most effective way Tehran could up the ante is to continue to develop its nuclear options.
The statement that "rogue regimes rarely stay bribed" reminded me of the story of Ethelred the Unready. Ethelred, a descendant of Alfred the Great, came to power in 978, and inherited a peaceful and prosperous England. Churchill, in his History of the English Speaking Peoples, describes Ethelred in less-than-flattering terms:
Hitherto strong men armed had kept the house. Now a child, a weakling, a vacillator, a faithless, feckless creature, succeeded to the warrior throne. Twenty five years of peace lapped the land, and the English, so magnificent in stress and danger, so invincible under valiant leadership, relaxed under its softening influences.
Alfred battled Viking raiders throughout his reign, and made many payoffs to the Viking kings when thought it to his advantage. If Alfred didn't believe he could win a battle, and the raiders could only win with much bloodshed, a payoff made sense to both parties, and tribute was paid to the Vikings while Alfred kept his forces intact and plotted his next move.
Churchill contrasts Alfred with Ethelred: "We have seen that Alfred in his day had never hesitated to use money as well as arms. Ethelred used money instead of arms. He used it in ever-increasing quantities, with ever-diminishing returns."
In 991, Ethelred paid the invaders 10,000 pounds of silver for peace. By 994, the Vikings wanted more, and 16,000 pounds bought eight more years of peace. The price in 1002 was 24,000 pounds of silver, and Ethelred again paid. Sweyn, King of Denmark, demanded 36,000 pounds in 1006, and Ethelred paid. According to Churchill, this sum was 3-4 years' national income. Finally, Ethelred paid the Vikings 48,000 pounds of silver in 1012.
"Finally," not because the Vikings finally left England alone, but because the Vikings came back in 1013, took most of England, caused Ethelred to flee to Normandy, and claimed the throne.
The Journal notes that "British Foreign Minister Jack Straw says he cannot see 'any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran.'" Really. If keeping nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands is important to the world (and everyone seems to agree that it is), then Straw's comments only serve to evoke the desperation of Ethelred, and tell Iran that Europe has plenty of carrots, and nary a stick.
Comments