the horace mann Plunging into Afghanistan - Horace Mann School

More documents

Recommendations

Info

InternationalDigital JournalwordpressTehran and the Bombby greg barancikPresident Obama has pledgedsince his 2008 campaignthat he will open a dialoguewith Iran and negotiate ina way that his predecessordid not. This policy was most recentlyaffirmed by the Norwegian Nobel Committeewhen Obama was awarded theNobel Prize for “extraordinary efforts tostrengthen international diplomacy andcooperation between peoples.” While diplomacyis the ideal course for America’sforeign policy, the United States needsto remember that its national security isparamount, and that the complex natureof United States-Iran relations may callfor serious action instead of lofty rhetoric.Iran’s recent history is plagued bythe issue of nuclear proliferation. Thereis little doubt among our country’s leadersand top intelligence officials that Iranhopes to develop nuclear weapons. Iranianpresident Mahmoud Ahmadinejadhas publically stated that he wants to seeIsrael wiped off the map and after themost recent Iranian elections, it is clearthat Iran has become a dictatorship withno regard for human rights or human life.Almost all nations agree that appropriateaction must be taken against Iran in orderto prevent not only greater tensions,but also a total, chaotic destabilization ofthe entire Middle East region.One year ago, then Senator BarackObama promised that he would “engagein aggressive personal diplomacy” withIran. The move was supported by manyAmericans who rejected President Bush’sstatement that he would only engagethe Iranians in dialogue if they stoppedenriching uranium. The problem withPresident Obama’s plan is that it assumesthe Iranians have the same goals of peaceand international unity that guide theDemocrat’s exemplary foreign policy.When two opposing parties have oppositeviews but hold a common desire forinternational peace and security, engagementcan be a powerful tool. The worldwitnessed the power of engagement inthe context of nuclear weapons duringthe Cold War; the Strategic Arms ReductionTreaty between the United States andRussia led to a reduction in nuclear armaments.This strategy, whenever applicable,should be used to the fullest extentpossible.However, when both parties cannotagree on a common ideal, there are significantrisks to engagement, which theObama administration must considermore carefully. Engaging Iran without adisplay of good faith presents both riskThe United States should notand must not submit to Iranianterms while Iran continues toflaunt its disregard of internationallaw.of future extortion and moral hazard forthe world. If we appease Iran without demandinganything in return, we makeourselves vulnerable to perpetual Iraniandemands. If the Iranians believe that wewill continue to make concessions as asecurity building measure regardless oftheir actions, the Iranians will have noincentive to change their course of behav-8HM Review Vol. XIX
Internationalior. Similarly, if we reward Iran’s misbehaviorby unconditionally welcomingit back into the fold of InternationalDiplomacy, we establish a dangerousprecedent where other disenfranchisednations may act up in an attempt to gaininternational acceptance.Although President Obama’s intentionsare genuine, his offer should notbe extended unilaterally. There must bea visible Iranian commitment towardsdisarmament before we agree to sitdown at the table or we place our nationalsecurity at risk. The Iranians haveconsistently ignored binding UnitedNations resolutions and show no respectfor the Nuclear NonproliferationTreaty. Through their reckless disregardfor agreements, the Iranians have alreadyproved that they cannot be heldto their word. Now the burden shiftsto Ahmadinejad to make the show ofGood Faith; the United States shouldnot and must not submit to Iranianterms while Iran continues to flauntits disregard of international law. If theUnited States and Iran cannot agree ona similar goal on similar terms, any timespent on diplomacy is merely stalling onthe part of the Iranians in order to fullydevelop their nuclear technology.Considering Iran’s history and thedomestic risks associated with engagement,heavier sanctions would seem anideal solution to this issue. The premiseis simple: make the economic situationso bad for Iran that it will be forced tochoose economic stability over a nuclearweapons program. However, despitethe United States’ best efforts, enactingthese tough sanctions has proven farfrom straightforward. The principal issuewith sanctions is that they are onlyas strong as their weakest link. The UnitedStates may put any amount of sanctionson Iran but if China and Russiado not take similar measures, Iran maysimply trade with them and our sanctionswould have little consequence.So far, the United States has been ableto convince China and Russia to putstronger sanctions in place, butIran’s economy has remainedsteady. In addition, as we haveseen with North Korea, if a dictatoris determined to build nuclearweapons irrespective of harmto the country’s people, there isnothing that even unanimoussanctions can do about it.Although sanctions continueto be the best planat the moment, giventheir risks of failure,we cannot afford tolimit ourselves tothis option.When all diplomaticand economicmeasures have beentried, there is onlyone instrument of foreignpolicy left to preventIran from obtainingnuclear weapons. Americashould be preparedto use precision forceto disable Iran’s nuclearprogram. At this moment,the United States cannot affordto wage a full-scale waragainst Iran but the costof a small military strikeagainst specially targetsis far less costly than doingnothing, and allowinga dangerous country tobecome a nuclear power.This option is far fromideal. Fixing the Iranianissue through diplomacyor economic measures wouldbe a good model of peaceful foreignrelations. However, if these twooptions do not prove effective, we needto be prepared to use force against Iran.While Iran may not yield to diplomaticpressure and while the world may notunite in sanctions, the United Statescertainly has the power to disable Iraniannuclear weapons by force. Hopefully,the United States will not be obliged totake military action against Iran but weneed to be prepared todo so. HMRhuffingtonpost.comJanuary 2010 HM Review 9
Page 1 and 2: Reviewthehorace mannDomestic - Inte
Page 3 and 4: Letter from the EditorThe Horace Ma
Page 5 and 6: DomesticEstimates state that therea
Page 7: InternationalCandles Journalists li
Page 11 and 12: mosques in Switzerland, only four h
Page 13 and 14: FeaturesTimetate the region and add
Page 15 and 16: FeaturesJanuary 2010 HM Review 15Bo
Page 17 and 18: FeaturesWar’s DevastationTimeTime
Page 19 and 20: launched. The Wall Street Journal r
Page 21 and 22: Considering that the computers used
Page 23 and 24: Science and Technologyentists. Thei

the horace mann Plunging into Afghanistan - Horace Mann School

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?