Coming into office on the heels of the Bush
administration has given Obama numerous advantages. It doesn't take
much for him to look good when compared to his predecessor, because
almost any current problem can be blamed on the previous eight
years of ineptitude. In many ways all our new President has to do
to succeed is be the opposite of George W. Bush: well-spoken,
reasonable, diplomatic.
But now Obama is faced with a very similar situation to
the one faced by George Bush in 2003, except this time the problem
comes from Iran. For fear of committing the same mistakes as Bush,
Obama is taking a lenient stance on Iran's nuclear program. While
this approach guarantees Obama will not accidentally take
aggressive action based on faulty intelligence, this is one issue
where a little Texas-style aggression is the best approach.
While there is evidence Iran is actively seeking
nuclear weapons, it is the attitude of the Iranian government that
should be provoking more direct action. The International Atomic
Energy Association reported last week that Iran has the knowledge
to create a nuclear weapon that could hit most of the Middle East
and parts of Europe. The European intelligence community, including
Israel, France, Britain and Germany, has reached the conclusion
that Iran has restarted work on producing such a weapon. In
response to such claims, Iran has made several concessions that
amount to a slap in the face of a truly concerned world.
Iran is willing to allow access to nuclear sites that
were only recently disclosed—however, the inspectors won't be
allowed in for three weeks. It's easy to see how Bush would have
handled this news: He would have asked why Iran needs three weeks
to let inspectors see a site that was supposed to have been
disclosed long ago. He would have taken the intelligence reports of
numerous nations and the report of the IAEA, put two and two
together, and given Iran an ultimatum: Let us in now or we are
coming in.
While Bush was wrong about nearly everything else, he
was correct on his stance regarding nuclear weapons. Obama should
be doing more than promoting negotiations and threatening sanctions
if Iran doesn't cooperate. The world cannot afford another unstable
nation with nuclear weapon capability; American needs to have the
courage to enforce international law. Even if we are facing another
example of faulty intelligence, there is no reason for Iran to
deceive the international community.
Governments that are unwilling to cooperate fully on
matters of global security and have not proven themselves to be
committed to peace deserve no leniency. If the Iranian government
truly had the best interests of its people in mind they would
welcome the world's offer of inspectors and global participation in
speeding their development of nuclear power. Deceit and stall
tactics serve no purpose except incrimination.
Obama needs to respond to the Iranian nuclear situation
without allowing past American actions to influence his decision.
He should tell Iran what their action's look like and what he
intends to do about it. Flawed though he was, America needs to
adopt George Bush's attitude toward dangerous nations—If Iran
refuses to prove that it is not seeking nuclear weapons Obama must
take military action.
Andrew Carpenter is a senior majoring in
communication arts and psychology. We welcome all feedback. Please
send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
