The.Economist.2007-02-10 (966424), страница 3
Текст из файла (страница 3)
With a weak and isolated president, and an armybogged down in the misery of Iraq, the American Congress and people are hardly in fighting mood.Nonetheless, and despite Mr Gates's calming words, Iran and America are heading for a collision.Although the risk is hard to quantify, there exists a real possibility that George Bush will order a militarystrike on Iran some time before he leaves the White House two years from now.America and Iran have been at loggerheads ever since Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution of 1979.
But fourthings are making this old antagonism newly dangerous. One is Iran's apparent determination to buildnuclear weapons, and a fear that it is nearing the point where its nuclear programme will be impossibleto stop (see article). The second is the advent of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a populist president who deniesthe Holocaust and calls openly for Israel's destruction: his apocalyptic speeches have convinced manypeople in Israel and America that the world is facing a new Hitler with genocidal intent. The third is arecent tendency inside the Bush administration to blame Iran for many of America's troubles not just inIraq but throughout the Middle East.Any one of these would be destabilising enough on its own.
Added together, they make the possibility ofmiscalculation and a slide into war a great deal more likely. That is all the more so when they arecombined with a fourth new source of friction between America and Iran. This is the predicament of MrBush. A president who is now detached from electoral considerations knows that his place in history isgoing to be defined by the tests he himself chose to put at the centre of his foreign policy: bringingdemocracy to the Middle East and preventing rogue regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.Given his excessive willingness to blame Iran for blocking America's noble aims in the Middle East, hemay come to see a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear programme as a fitting way to redeem hispresidency.
That would be a mistake.Never attack a revolutionThis newspaper supported America's invasion of Iraq. We believed, erroneously, that Saddam Husseinwas working to acquire nuclear weapons. And we judged that the world should not allow a mass-murderer to gather such lethal power in his hands. In the case of Iran, the balance of risks points,though only just, in the other direction.Even if it became clear that Iran was on the threshold of acquiring an atomic bomb, an American strikeon its nuclear facilities would be a reckless gamble. Without America invading and occupying Iran—unthinkable after Iraq—such a strike would at best delay rather than end Iran's nuclear ambitions. Itmight very well rally support behind a regime that is at present not conspicuously popular at home,emboldening it to retaliate inside Iraq, against Israel and perhaps against the United States itself.Besides, it is far from clear exactly how dangerous a nuclear-armed Iran would be.
Unlike Iraq underSaddam, Iran has a complex power structure with elements of pluralism and many checks and balances.For all its proclaimed religiosity, it has behaved since the revolution like a rational actor. To be sure,some of its regional aims are mischievous, and in pursuing them it has adopted foul means, includingterrorism. But the ayatollahs have so far been shrewd calculators of consequences. There are alreadysmall signs of a backlash against the attention-seeking Mr Ahmadinejad.
Like the Soviet Union, a nuclearIran could probably be deterred.But don't think Iran isn't dangerousAll of this suggests that in present circumstances it would be wrong for America to launch a militarystrike against Iran. But it would be the height of self-deception for anyone to jump to the conclusion thata nuclear-armed Iran would not be dangerous at all.
It would be very dangerous indeed.For a start, there is a danger that Iran's nuclear efforts will provoke a pre-emptive strike by Israel, whichis already a nuclear power, albeit an undeclared one. For Israelis, whose country Mr Ahmadinejad sayshe wants to wipe off the map, it is not all that reassuring to hear that Iran can “probably” be deterred.Even if Israel were to decide against such a strike, Iran's going nuclear could destroy what is left of theinternational non-proliferation regime. It has proved hard enough for Arab states such as Egypt andSaudi Arabia to live with Israel's undeclared bomb; if their Iranian rival got one too, the race to copymight soon be on. On top of this is the danger that a nuclear Iran would feel safe to ramp up attempts tospread its revolution violently beyond its own borders.Every effort should be made to stop an Iranian bomb.
But there is a better way than an armed strike. In2002 Mr Bush consigned Iran along with Iraq and North Korea to an “axis of evil”. Since 2004, for lack ofgood alternatives, he has been helping the efforts of Britain, France and Germany to talk rather thanbludgeon Iran into nuclear compliance. Iran claims that its nuclear programme is for civil purposes only.Last year, the Europeans called its bluff by offering trade, civil-nuclear assistance and a promise of talkswith America if it stopped enriching the uranium that could produce the fuel for a bomb.
When Iranrefused, diplomacy led in December to the imposition of economic sanctions by the Security Council.This is a promising approach. The diplomacy at the United Nations proceeds at a glacial pace. But Iran isthought to be several years from a bomb. And meanwhile the Americans, Europeans, Russians andChinese have at last all lined up on the same side of the argument. What is required now is a furthertightening of the economic squeeze coupled with some sort of an incentive—most usefully anunambiguous promise from Mr Bush that if Iran returns to compliance with the nuclear rules it will faceno attempt by America to overthrow the regime. Even then, America and Iran may be fated to lock hornsin the Middle East. But the region, and the world, will be a good deal safer without the shadow of anIranian bomb.Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group.
All rights reserved.About sponsorshipDigital musicMusic wants to be freeFeb 8th 2007From The Economist print editionEveryone will benefit if digital music is sold without copy-protectionLandovIT IS not often that the company that dominates an industry, and is thus most wedded to the status quo,calls for the rules that govern the business to be changed.
But that is what happened this week whenSteve Jobs, the boss of Apple—which dominates digital music with its iPod music-player and iTunesmusic-store—published an essay on his firm's website under the unassuming title “Thoughts on Music”.At issue is digital rights management (DRM)—the technology guarding downloaded music against theft.Since there is no common DRM standard, songs purchased for one type of music player may not work onanother. Apple's DRM system, called FairPlay, is the most widespread.European regulators have been gunning for Apple.
They regard its refusal to license FairPlay asmonopolistic. Since music from the iTunes store cannot be played on non-iPod music-players (at least notwithout a lot of fiddling), any iTunes buyer will be deterred from switching to a rival device. Last year,French lawmakers drafted a bill compelling Apple to open up FairPlay to rivals.In the past, Apple has supported DRM on the grounds that it kept the pirates at bay. It described theFrench bill as “state-sponsored piracy”.
But this week Mr Jobs gave an alternative explanation fordefending DRM: the record companies' demands. They agreed to make their music available to iTunesonly if Apple agreed to protect it using DRM; indeed, they can still withdraw it if the DRM system iscompromised.
Apple cannot license FairPlay to others, says Mr Jobs, because it would depend on them toproduce security fixes promptly. So, he suggests, why not do away with DRM and sell musicunprotected? “This is clearly the best alternative for consumers,” he declares, “and Apple would embraceit in a heartbeat.”Why the sudden change of heart? Mr Jobs is presumably keen to get Europe's regulators off his back.Rather than complaining to Apple about its use of DRM, he suggests, “those unhappy with the currentsituation should redirect their energies towards persuading the music companies to sell their music DRMfree.” Two and a half of the four big record companies, he helpfully points out, are European-owned.Rhythm and duesBut, politics aside, getting rid of DRM would probably be good for Apple.
It can afford to embrace opencompetition in music players and online stores. Consumers would gravitate to the best player and thebest store, and at the moment that means Apple's. Mr Jobs is unfazed by rivals to the iPod: he notesthat, since only 3% of the music in a typical iTunes library is protected, most of it can already be used onother players today. So Apple's dominance evidently depends far more on branding and ease of use thanon DRM-related “lock-in”.It would probably be good for everybody else, too. Consumers would benefit because all music and alldevices would become compatible.
Record companies worry about piracy; but most of the music they sellis still on CDs—a far bigger source of piracy than the internet—and they would benefit from higher salesthat greater compatibility would bring. Lots of small labels already sell DRM-free music, and some of thegiants are trying it out. Which may be another reason for Mr Jobs's change of heart: having seen whichway the wind is blowing, he wants to be regarded not as a defender of DRM, but as a consumerchampion who helped bring it down.Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.About sponsorshipPrivate equityCaveat investorFeb 8th 2007From The Economist print editionThe real risks of private equitySharon TancrediTAKE an underperforming company.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
