Dealing With Iran

I was watching the first presidential debate between Obama and McCain and one part in particular that caught my interest was the policy towards Iran. Both candidates agree that Iran poses a potential threat as it continues to develop its nuclear technology. Additionally Iran has been sending IED’s and special interest groups, such as the Republican Guard, into Iraq. The candidates differ about how to deal with the problem.

McCain seeks a very interventionist policy, and proposed to create a “League of Democracies,” which would place severe sanctions on Iran. Should it continue to pursue its nuclear program, the next step would be military action. Basically, McCain believes that Iran poses so much of a threat that it requires strict and immediate action to handle. His final point was that direct diplomacy without pre-conditions should be opposed. According to McCain, sitting at the table to talk with Iran would only validate its position.

Obama favored a plan focused on diplomacy, and opposed military action unless all other options had been pursued. The Democratic candidate proposed direct talks with Iran without pre-conditions. He stated that Bush’s refusal to hold talks without pre-conditions with North Korea worsened the situation. It had the effect of spurring the growth of the North Korean nuclear development. Obama also criticized McCain’s “League of Democracies” plan, saying that the help of more nations than just democracies would be needed to deal with Iran.

I personally side more with Obama’s views on the issue. I am a firm believer in turning to military action as a very last resort, only when all other options are exhausted. Furthermore, I do not agree with McCain’s opinion that initiating talks without pre-conditions validates Iran’s stance. I do not believe that simply being willing to talk with people validates their opinions. If this were true we would never resolve anything because we would be unwilling to work out our differences.