From the London Evening Standard we have this proposal for new sanctions on Iran to deter that country’s nuclear ambitions

[A]n Israeli journalist has come up with an ingenious idea: a boycott on the export of cosmetics and toiletries to Iran. Apparently, Iran is the world’s seventh largest consumer of beauty products, spending no less than $2.1 billion (£1.4 billion) a year on creams, lotions, shampoos, conditioner, lipstick and mascara. Iran alone accounts for a third of the total sales in the Middle East — and the vast majority of them are imported.

The argument put forward by Zvi Barel in Haaretz is that, threatened with the loss of their precious supplies, Iranian women would put pressure on their menfolk to stop the development of the bomb.

Clearly Mr. Barel clearly has Lysistrata in mind. What next? A proposal to consult with the oracle of Delphi to divine a plan to defeat the Iranian navy in the Straits of Salamis?

I hope Mr. Barel has his misogynistic tongue planted firmly in his cheek when proposing that depriving Iranian women of lipstick would be an effective way to influence nuclear policy in Iran. It all sounds more like I Love Lucy than Lysistrata.

Seriously, if we’ve learned anything about economic sanctions, it’s that targeting the general (and innocent) populace of a country never succeeds in reforming that country’s foreign policies or nuclear ambitions.

[Thanks to my colleague in London, Anita Esslinger, for pointing out the blurb in the Evening Standard]

Permalink


Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)