Some Things Won't Change

It seems that the leaders of Iran did not quite get what they were bargaining for when Barack Obama won the US presidential election this past week. No one will argue that under President George W. Bush, US-Iranian relations were strained to say the least so it would have been understandable if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thought that the campaign against Iran would dissipate under President Obama.

Ooops!!!

While Ahmadinejad congratulated Obama on his victory, he also took his first political jab at the president-elect claiming that "the 'nations of the world' expect changes from the Mr. Obama -- mostly that he will change U.S. foreign policy. He claimed U.S. policy was 'based on warmongering, occupation, bullying, deception and humiliation, as well as discrimination and unfair relations' " -- Globe and Mail.

What makes the Iranian leader think he (and the rest of the world, however I don't think the he is thinking of the rest of the world considering he doesn't listen to anyone) can expect anything from Obama? While Obama did campaign on the ideal that he would take a more diplomatic approach to dealing with Iran but that does not mean that this approach will be any less forceful. Obama owes nothing to anyone but the people who elected them and they are not found in Iran.

A nuclear Iran would still constitute a threat to the security of the United States and Mr. Obama is aware of this. As Commander-in-Chief, Obama will be in charge of the safety and security of the nation, just like President Bush, and as such must be as forceful as necessary so as to protect the nation. Just because Obama is the supposed anti-Bush doesn't mean that he cannot recognize that Iran is a pressing issue right now in international affairs and he will seek to protect American interests, plain and simple. That is why it should not have come as any surprise when Obama commented that "it is 'unacceptable' for Iran to develop nuclear weapons and that there should be a concerted international effort to prevent it" -- Globe and Mail.

The Iranian government, specifically President Amadinejad, should only blame themselves for this continued campaign against them. Their shady stance on nuclear weapons and stated desire to wipe Israel off of the map make Iran not only a threat to the United State but to international peace and security. That is why Bush was so hard on them and that is why Obama will likely follow suit

Tough luck Iran, it looks like four more years of being public enemy number one!

- blenCOWe

Sanctions Falling on Deaf Ears

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in New York speaking to the United Nations this week. He is spouting off his usual rhetoric about the great powers "bullying" Iran over its nuclear program and so on.

In response to recent moves/remarks by Ahmadinejad and Iran, the United States and its allies are pushing for the Security Council to pass sanctions on the renegade state. I am supremely confident that these sanctions will not have any effect. Why am I so sure? Because the previous THREE sets of sanctions haven't had any effect to curb the rebellious attitude of Iran.

In the end, another set of sanctions will just be more empty talk between the two rivals.

- blenCOWe

A Final Push for Peace?

I fully appreciate the gravity of the United States sending William Burns to the nuclear talks with Iran but it seems to me that a lot of the recent discussion on the subject might be a little over-ambitious.

In the waning months of the his final term in the presidency, George W. Bush is attempting to create visions of peace to include in his legacy. He has pushed for a peace agreement between Syria and Israel and has ended 30 years of US unwillingness to work with the Iranians towards an amicable agreement.

These endeavours are admirable but unfortunately both of these actions will probably take longer than the remaining months that he has in office. To begin involvement in these situations knowing full well that they will last beyond his term is both ignorant and unrealistic. The next president, whether it is McCain or Obama, is under no obligation to continue whatever works he starts. Mr. Bush SHOULD know this and his foreign counterparts do too so what is Bush going to offer these people? The foreign leaders that Bush is trying to work with have no incentive to deal with Bush in earnest because they know that in five months they will be dealing with someone else. This is especially troublesome because of the distance the candidates are attempting to place between themselves and Bush's practices and record. The chance for continuity is slim and considering the volatile and rapidly shifting nature of international politics, the effort that Bush is putting in now is unlikely to produce lasting results.

For example, recent remarks have indicated that, in the Iran case, if the multilateral talks break down, the Iranians can expect conflict from the United States. How is Iran supposed to react to these comments? And how credible a threat can it be from the United States if the threat of conflict only lasts five months? This situation has the same effect as trying to place a withdrawal date in Afghanistan and Iraq. With a foreseeable end in sight, opponents need only bide their time so that at the right time they can disrupt the ongoing process.

Rather than attempting to forge deals himself, Bush could work with Congress and the Senate to create policy that can continue past these next presidential elections. This would be a much more effective use of his time and the taxpayers' money.

In the end, Bush has set high expectations for his final months in office and possibly might have set the bar a bit too high. It is beginning to look more and more like a last ditch effort to leave some remnants of peace in his lasting legacy.

- blenCOWe