The editorial from the Wall Street Journal offers one crumb of comfort to Messrs Ross and Jordinson:
"Skeptics will assert that betting on such a scenario [Iran regime change] is a fool's errand."
But not for long as two sentences later he says:
"But betting on Tehran's continued stability under present conditions may be no safer."
Dr Ottolenghi makes one point I've made: that the regime will not back down on the nuclear issue. He says the sanctions won't change that but they have a better role: to precipitate regime collapse.
Jordinson and Ross should note:
"For the West, the best way out of the current impasse is not an agreement that might give the state a lifeline, but a popular uprising in the pattern of the Arab Spring. Triggered by growing economic distress, such an event could topple Iran's radical and irresponsible regime, allowing the emergence of leaders committed to democracy and ready to uphold Iran's international obligations in a transparent fashion."
and
"Iran's automotive industry's sales are down by 36%, with 500,000 jobs in jeopardy as a result of sanctions. Layoffs at factories are routine. The country's exports are rapidly declining. Even innocent sectors such as carpet sales are suffering. Sanctions must pile on the pressure—not because the regime will eventually compromise, but because ordinary Iranians will blame their rulers for the suffering they must endure on account of their nuclear follies."
and
"After nine years of negotiations, there is no deal to be had."
So in short Messrs. Jordinson and Ross should expect the West to do everything possible to topple the Iranian regime, which they seem to be doing.
So our Board should not be diluting us out of Mehdiabad now.
