Thoughts On Iran

I found a couple different news stories that illustrate one of the big issues that the next President is going to face: how to deal with Iran.  First, let's set the stage.

Iran has a long history of flaunting U.N. sanctions in regard to developing nuclear weapons technology.  I've blogged many times over about that, so I'm not going to cite specific articles here.  It's undeniable.  There have also been many reports that Iran is getting very, very close to achieving nuclear weapons capability.  Again, this is not in dispute.  It is also common knowledge that a nuclear-equipped Iran will cause massive instability in the Middle East, and, due to the influence of the oil-producing nations on the rest of the world, the entire globe.  Bush has taken a hard line against Iran's nuclear program, even to the point of threatening military action.  [If one looks at historical precedent, it is pretty plain that Iran has already passed what used to be understood as grounds for all-out war: the active killing of American troops and the active support for American enemies who are killing American troops and civilians, but I guess it's a sad sign of the politically correct times we live in that we've done nothing in response.]

Let's look at the stories of some key figures involved with this issue.  Iranian President Ahmadinejad has recently said:

"Whoever wins the elections, I'm sure that the United States will change, it will have a different approach," the Iranian leader told the Italian daily La Repubblica.

"The United States will have a reduced sphere of influence in the world," he predicted, adding: "The new president will have to respond to the real demands of the American people: 40 million American citizens do not have health insurance, the victims of the New Orleans hurricane still have no homes."

In addition, the United States "will have to withdraw the soldiers from Iraq (since) the American people will not tolerate continued spending of billions of dollars on weapons," said Ahmadenijad, in Rome to attend the UN food agency's summit on food security.

Side note: it's amazing how he's saying exactly the same things the Democrats are saying, isn't it?  Anyway, he's expecting a 'different approach' from the next President.  Naturally he would, since the current approach has been to fight his efforts at going nuclear.  Barack Obama is promising to hold talks with Iran without pre-conditions, a clear sign of weakness.  This would obviously be of great benefit to Iran, since it would allow him to endlessly string along Obama and the rest of the world until he has his nukes.  Then what are we going to do?  If you think negotiating with a radical Islamic dictator who's seeking nukes is challenging, how do you think it would be to try negotiating with a radical Islamic dictator who already has nukes?  It'll be pretty simple: comply, or be destroyed.  Ahmadinejad has already promised to destroy both America and Israel, so I can't see too many dots left to connect.

Now, do you think it's possible for Obama to actually negotiate with Ahmadinejad?  Personally, I don't, but I base my assumptions on my understanding of Islamic radicalism.  How about we take a look at the words of someone who has been actively engaged in negotiations with Ahmadinejad for a couple of years, Condoleezza Rice:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday that there was no point in talking to Iran unless the clerical regime changed its behavior and gave up what Washington suspects are ambitions to possess nuclear weapons.

Rice said true diplomacy was "not a synonym for talking," but must be combined with pressure tactics.

Speaking to the pro-Israel group AIPAC, Rice made it clear that she did not believe Iran had quit pursuing a nuclear bomb.

There may be a time to engage the Iranians, but "not while they continue to inch closer to a nuclear weapon under the cover of talk," Rice said.

She posed a series of rhetorical questions to cast doubt on Iran's claim that its nuclear program is purely peaceful and intended for civilian purposes. She asked why Iran was suspected of not been forthcoming with the United Nations nuclear agency and why part of its program was run by the military. She also pointed to a new skeptical report by the head of the UN nuclear agency, Mohamed ElBaradei.

"It's just hard to imagine that there are innocent answers to these questions," Rice said.

And yet, this is precisely what Obama is proposing!  Now, who are we going to trust?  A man who hasn't even been in the Senate for three full years with no major legislation or accomplishments under his name, or a career politician with extensive foreign affairs experience who has been actively engaged in talks with Iran?

The difference couldn't be greater.

There's my two cents.