I will try to answer the question on multilateralism.
The reason why I think Canada can succeed in encouraging a targeted sanctions policy is that a targeted sanction approach is already in place over the nuclear question--that's one point.
The second point is that the alternatives are so drastic in terms of a possible military confrontation that I think Canada is in a position to provide an alternative, which is not seen as appeasement, which is still effective but at the same time non-violent.
In terms of a diplomatic embargo, this is a difficult question. I think one needs to keep the lines of communication open. I think it would not be a good policy to sever diplomatic ties with Iran, certainly not acting in isolation and certainly not at a time when keeping the lines of communication open is especially important because of the danger of some sort of confrontation. I think there has to be a consistent message from the international community that those who are committing human rights abuses will pay a price, and that message will be heard loud and clear in Iran.
I want to show you momentarily three reports from the organization I co-founded with some colleagues, the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center in New Haven.
One of those is a report on murder at Mykonos, which is the most thorough investigative account of the murder that occurred in Mykonos. I think this example is very good. It shows that when the European Union told the Iranian government with a unified voice that they would no longer accept political assassinations in Europe, there were no more political assassinations.
The Iranian government can exploit, let's say, commercial interests and other such motivations as a means essentially of buying appeasement. In a sense, I think the international community is responsible for having tolerated the situation as it exists in Iran for so long.