A Difference of Opinion With The Claremont Institute on Iran

I love the Claremont Institute. I am not ashamed to admit it.

I think that they extend the light of freedom by preserving the principles of the American Founding. Their vision of an accountable government that "respects private property, promotes stable family life, and maintains a strong defense" is my vision. It goes without saying that I consider myself a "Claremont Conservative."

And yet, I am troubled by an article I read in today's Detroit Free Press about the Claremont Institute.

Here's the paragraph in question (emphasis added)

Claremont [Institute] would like to see the United States embark on developing a $15-billion missile defense system and discourage U.S. citizens and institutions from investing in Iran or corporations that do business in Iran.

I have no disagreement with the national missile defense system. I think a better location for it would be in Azerbaijan, as the Russians suggest, and not, Eastern Europe, as the Americans want, but that's a matter for policy experts to ponder.

I do not believe, as St. Barack, does, that we ought to sit down with the governments of our enemies and bomb our allies.

But just because I would not sit down with the Hitlers of the world does not mean I would not trade with the Germans, languishing as they were for the socialist economic policies of the Third Reich. The Germans, we must remember, thought Hitler was an emissary of "hope."

And so it is with Iran.

Yes, a regime change needs to occur in Iran. But sanctions are the wrong way to achieve that end. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that sanctions never achieve the ends they set out to accomplish. Witness Myanmar (Burma), North Korea, and Cuba (though its chains may be loosening.) Do you really think that those countries' elites have missed a single meal? Do we really believe that the homophobic, anti-Semitic, hateful Iranian regime is upset when we refuse to trade our ideas or goods in their markets?

We need more companies to invest in Iran because those companies can bring a taste for the amenities and dignities of capitalism. A great man once said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." That great man was aided by some of the very people who work and have worked for the Claremont Institute. Why they, of all people would want to establish the economic versions of those walls is something I fail to grasp. If history is any indication, the reason the Soviet Empire fell was due to the message of freedom we, through the Voice of America, broadcast into contraband radios. I firmly believe that that message is intended for every human heart.

An economic downturn in Iran would mean that millions would try to leave, which, would in turn, damage the families by tearing them apart, give the state more control over those who stay behind, and could potentially inflame the region. In short, it's against the aims of the Claremont Institute.